[akwoo]

The request for a ruling became moot since we blitzed the match, but our table tried to give the directors an impossible problem.

Yesterday (the final Sunday) at the NABC, "regional" 0-4K bracketed Swiss, top bracket (we would've been in bracket 2 but asked to be placed up).

---

At this point I ask South about 3C and was told it was invitational. I passed. After the board was played, South agreed that 3C was agreed to be weak and he had forgotten.

Here's the problem for the directors. This is a problem where skill level makes a big difference. I think almost all weaker players pass (I've only got 14 hcp!) and almost all stronger players bid 4♠ (I need 2 cards from partner, and he rates to have that much given the correct info from opps).

I've got 800 masterpoints... and I've won the 0-2.5K Micro-Spingold. There's a reason we won the bracket by a 40+ VP margin. Who are my peers? Is there even anyone in the event who would've doubled 3♣? (Also, in this situation, given we're the non-offending side, what's the threshold?)

Opps are known to me and are a strong pair for the field.

[jillybean]

I very much dislike polls , if you say you would have bid 4S with the correct information, that is how the Directors should make their ruling.
Finding peers, or worse , hearing a Director say, as I did today, “you’ve got xx losing trick count , you can’t bid 4S” is no way to make a ruling. We continue to protect the OS and dismiss the NOS if it doesn’t fit with the Directors style.

[awm]

I've seen enough ridiculous statements by players about "what they would've done" after the hand that I disagree with Jillybean here.

As far as "peers", I think by virtue of playing in the event, your peers must be assumed to be players at the level of the event. I'd try to poll the top players in the 0-4k, or in a similar limited event. While it might be the case that you are a much better player than everyone in such a poll, were that the case it would argue that you should perhaps not be playing in a 0-4k to begin with.

[mycroft]

"The opponents made a mistake, we get a good score." We don't play that, it has to be reasonable.

"Of course I would always..." Well, after seeing that it makes, at least.

This is one of the reasons we take the players away from the table at the call and ask what they would have done - if AKWoo tells me he'd bid 4♠ with the correct information, before the opening lead, *and it's clear from the question that he was suspicious, and was thinking about it at the time*, then I'm very likely to believe he would have. Frankly, if I do poll it, I effectively have to find that "nobody who agrees with the previous auction bids".

But agreeing *strongly* with awm here - again, bridge players are pattern-matching demons, and "would obviously" have done what works, and will always have the explanation as to why. Even when on a very similar hand that would generate the same auction, they would go 800 in the "obvious" contract.

We should not be naturally suspicious of the non-offenders - but we should not be Gullible Guppy either.

I had one in Puerto Vallarta that I was *much more* suspicious of than I would be here, and a player much more experienced and who it would not be surprising if they "had the moves down" (please note, I am *not* saying anything about his ethics here. Just "seen it often enough to get the 'I might have' in, in case it's right"). Frankly, when I looked at the hand record, I said to myself "yeah, nobody would *actually* do that". BUT. Not only was he convincing himself of the rightness of the action during my discussion (again, before the opening lead), when we got back to the table, he was reaching for the box and wondering why I would only allow his partner to change their call. So it was clear to me that absolutely, *this player* would have, even though I still think it was crazy (but worked). As he was the non-offender - no poll needed, adjust the score.

As for the original question (took me long enough :-) - you have your peer right there. "800 MP, but won the micro-Spingold a couple of years ago. 'Young' player, you know how they are, and how undervalued MPs are for them (especially in D18/19). Asked to play up, and is clearly at least *in the field*, as they're leading so far" (this wasn't R1, was it?) So, we go looking for that kind of person. One of the top flight of the "Edmonton Juniors", maybe (who I know was there :-)? A younger 1500 point player with some rep? Maybe even others in that bracket, and who cares about Monsterpoints? Me (yeah, I have 2200, but my "what have you won"(*) is multiple D18 GNT-Bs, a couple of Regional Open Pairs, and made day 2 of the NABC Mixed. Not a (GNT-B level) National event)?

There's always the problem of "underpointed juniors". Many of them I would rank higher than AKWoo, like the guy Tom Carmichael has been mentoring for 5 years or so, who has told me at least twice "will be better than me [Tom]"; or the USBF Junior team (or new ex-Juniors still playing). There's even people like Olivia Schireson, who is clearly in a higher plane, but still. Really, these people are young enough to remember the "AKWoo" level time in their life, and can "pretend to be younger-themselves, with some of the Junior action knocked off". And if they can't on this one - they'll tell me. Or better yet, they'll tell me the people *they know* who would be better placed to be a peer.

Of course, if necessary, I can think of a couple of directors that would know him very well that would have been in the building, if not in the room. If there's any question of finding peers, why don't we ask them who's a good peer?

I will remind everyone there was that one thread a couple of years ago where I had to find peers of AKWoo. I can't remember who I found (part of the problem was that they had to be Precision players too), but on average, they masterpointed much higher than 800 :-). Of course, I had other Directors I could discuss with to find a good range; they were aiming about the same as I was.

Again, we're professionals; we've seen this before. And at the NABC, there's lots of choice (and lots of experience with "winner of the 0-2500 event").

(*)See? I follow my own advice: "After LM, it's 'what have you won, and with whom?' " I'm not just ragging on the "we need a real rating system" people.