[BudH]

Second seat, none vulnerable, matchpoints (ACBL club game) holding

T86432
64
J52
K2

I was told one of the club's better players (more than 6,000 masterpoints) and well known for his aggressive preempting style opened this hand 3S in second seat. Since I am the head game director at this local club, I was asked if there is anything I can do to "stop this ridiculousness". (My comment was "did he have a bottom on the previous board" since I know this player when fixed or when his partner did something silly on the previous board is known to "take some extra liberties".)

Worse yet that he did this against two novice/intermediate players.

This player rarely plays with very good players and, because of this, tends to mastermind frequently bidding both his cards and often those of his partner, also.

I would like to "reel him in" back to just "very light" and not insane. I also know this player will ask me to produce all written documentation showing this type of action is not legal.

If necessary, he'll cause this a psyche, and he knows I cannot disallow psyches.

So far, the only thing I can see to do is to force him and his partner to check the "very light" boxes on the ACBL convention card AND to pre-alert the "very light" actions. (See bottom right corner of http://web2.acbl.org...-2004-08-01.pdf )

Plus, I recommended the opponents file a recorder form on this board.


Any other suggestions to deal with this player? Or important written documentation I should have ready to show him?

[1eyedjack]

It is true that you cannot ban psychs. But you *may* have the power to resist his attempt to categorise this action as such an event. This issue hinges on whether his partner of the moment is aware of his tendency as, it seems, is generally the case. In that case they have an implicit agreement to open this way, although they may be walking into a problem that both members of a partnership should be playing the same system.

If it is not a psych then there are just two questions to address: is it legal and is it adequately disclosed?

Its legality would be determined by NBO regulation and by the club if delegated by the NBO, I am not from the area and let others comment on that, although it seems you have already done your homework on this.

The question of disclosure only arises if it is legal by agreement. This would also be governed somewhat by local regulation but I shall go out on a limb and say that it does require extra disclosure, as it seems you have also confirmed. The counter argument is that if it is not a psych by reason of general notoriety then the opponents are probably as aware as his partner.

If all parties at the table are familiar with his style then I would say give him the freedom to hang himself on the green baize. If the style is actually successful under those conditions it can hardly be ruled "insane". Either way, why would you want to curb it?

[helene_t]

what's the problem? you asked them to prealert. that's fine. opps need to learn that dealing with divergent well disclosed styles is just as enjoyable as other aspects of the game.

[ggwhiz]

It's annoying but not illegal to pull this against rookies and appealing to his empathetic side is not likely to work.

Perhaps you can suggest to your other players that a defence to his 3 bids is double and lead trumps. Make tactics against these things a subject of chalk talks if you do those.

[weejonnie]

Maybe RA rules differ but:

1) In the EBU any call from 2♣ to 3♠ that show the suit are allowed. So bidding 3♠ on 6 to the 10 is legal. It may be alertible if it has a potentially unexpected meaning.
2) In the ACBL http://web2.acbl.org.../AlertChart.pdf it would appear that the 3♠ call is alertable as it has unusual strength/ shape and should probably be pre-alerted if based on highly aggressive methods.
3) If there is no agreement or implied agreement that partner may do this then there is no need to alert - hence the recording system.
4) Providing the above are followed then the 3♠ call is legal BUT partner is going to have to explain that the hand could be much weaker than a standard pre-empt.
5) Knowledge that partner has a tendency to be very aggressive in pre-empting (if he deviates from agreed system) is UI for their partner - but can be revealed to opponents.

6) A system that works is only not 'insane' if it works after due disclosure of partnership methods.
7) The call is not a psyche - it only differs by 1 for length and nothing for strength (there is no requirement in the laws for the high card points to be in the suit opened when holding a weak hand.)

(There is something to be said for sticking your oar in whenever possible before opponents can exchange information. I must admit doing it 2nd is probably the worst place .)

[mycroft]

1) Yes, absolutely, if they/he regularly "preempts with Qxxxxx or weaker" suits, he must pre-Alert this agreement (see the Alert Procedures). Every round. Every partner. If it's a style issue - he does it but his partner is more regular - that information must also be provided in the pre-Alert.
2) If he doesn't do that - or tells you that it's an occasional "psych" - then when you notice the same "psych" with the same partner in *your* memory, trigger Law 40C1, penalize them if the failure to disclose caused damage, explain that they now have this agreement, and it must either not be "psyched" again, or they must pre-Alert every round, as before. If they go the "won't psych it again" route, and he does (with that partner), DPs and a forwarding to the club's (or unit's) Conduct committee (for failure to disclose implicit partnership agreements, and failure to follow director's instructions) is in order.
3) Become intimately familiar with Law 40. Note in particular L40B1a and L40B2a. Since the ACBL delegates certain aspects of Regulating Authority to clubs, the club can designate preempts below a certain *defined* threshold "special partnership understandings" and bar them globally or in certain games. Note that that is the nuclear option - you don't really want to do this, as it will cause friction with everyone else, and also will train your players that this is "illegal" and they will be in for a shock when they go to the sectional and play the Meck(lite) pairs. Also note that your club's ability to do this is restricted for special games such as STaCs, GNT/NAP qualifiers, or unit wide games.
3a) Also, since you're in the ACBL, note Election 7 - they can't vary this method based on questions asked by the opponents or their opponents' defence discussions after the pre-Alert (as in, "okay, we play Fishbein against these guys". If his style magically becomes more sane after that, that is also a violation. Good luck proving *that* of course).
4) Yes, some education of the weaker players is in order. It is a legal (and becoming more common) tactic, because Preempts Work ™. Sure, they work better when the opponents aren't in on the joke, but that's what 1 and 2 above are for. Who knows, they might start playing this style too, and won't it be a good story when "their teacher" gets caught by it?
5) If this player is truly a bully - he only plays these games against weaker players who can't handle it, or after being "fixed" by "palookas" - then it is your club's right to warn him that this is unacceptable, and that further behaviour of this nature will result in a suspension from play in that club. And Then Do It. Note that this is not "proficiency at bridge", this is a specific tactic against specific players, and anybody who does that will be warned or put on probation. "It just happens that you're the only one doing this." Source for this: ACBL Handbook, Section Three, Chapter IV H. Be prepared for an appeal to the unit.

I frequently play odd and aggressive systems (and I felt really bad this week, when in 6 boards in a "open, but usually restricted, so this team is pretty novice" game, our system gave us:

• 1NT overcall for takeout
• power double
• fit jump shift
• 2♥ Woolsey/their NT
• 2♣ scramble after our 1NT-X

five boards straight of our 6-board match). I also play with (and mentor from a "being good in society" standpoint) a bunch of university students who are typical university students (Fantunes or 8+ openings with 5-card 1-7 preempts or...) We have a dearth of open games available to full-time working people, and so keeping the ones we have happy and going (especially the C players) is a high priority. So we always remind the club TD that if they (or their players) don't like what we're doing, we can play a more normal system. (it's technically illegal, but we have agreed to play "Protected Pair"; if particular ( C) pairs don't want to play against our stupid-system-of-the-week, we'll play 2/1 or K/S against them, switching back to our "anything goes" system against the experienced and the willing.)

[ggwhiz]

mycroft, on 2016-November-24, 11:02, said:

(it's technically illegal, but we have agreed to play "Protected Pair"; if particular ( C) pairs don't want to play against our stupid-system-of-the-week, we'll play 2/1 or K/S against them, switching back to our "anything goes" system against the experienced and the willing.)

When multi 2♦ was new and our wannabe national contenders wanted to practice it in the clubs they convinced the Director to let them give it a go. They had the suggested defence and when a C pair was confused would look at their opponents hands, tell them what to do (and why) and then completely pooch the play or defence. Worked like a charm.

[sanst]

Does this player this against weaker players and novices, and not against stronger ones? If so, it looks like bullying to me and you certainly can act upon that. There's also law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". Probably the wisest thing you can do, is to talk in a tactful manner about this with hiim, and explain that his tactics will appear intimidating to novices, makes playing against him a misery for them and might turn them away from bridge altogether. But you should also make the opponents clear that these are legal methods and they have to learn to deal with it.
Whatever you think about a 3♠ call on this hand, it's not a psyche, since it's not a gross misstatement of either honour count or length.

[mycroft]

If I opened 3♣ with that hand (with the black suits switched) in first or second with one partner, it would be a psych. We played that 3m opposite unpassed hand is "if you bid 3NT, you won't be disappointed." Given that agreement, bidding on this hand is a gross misstatement.

If I opened 3♠ with that hand (without the black suits switched) with that same partner, it would be aggressive, and I'd expect to get an eyeroll when it turned out to be 9 losers instead of 8. And yes, we pre-Alerted our 3M tendencies.

I doubt it's a psych in the OP case - my guess is that his partners are well aware of his tendencies, and situations where he would "take liberties"; it wouldn't surprise me if it goes 3♠ float, and partner drops 4 tricks and three small spades, and 3♠ is the limit of the hand. Might surprise the opponents, though.

I am reminded of playing EHAA in Chicago in the midnights, where the auction went at favourable 3♥ all float. I dropped my 18 count, the opponents said "you've seen your partner's preempts before, I see", and I reiterated my explanation (after the Pre-Alert and the Alert of 3♥, it was the third time). Making 3...

[helene_t]

sanst, on 2016-November-24, 13:36, said:

There's also law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game".

Hopefully this refers only to things like making sarcastic remarks etc. Anything might annoy or embarrass certain players. Heck, playing good bridge annoys some players.

[mycroft]

Oh, one thing I forgot about: ACBL policy on Psychic Bidding.

If he's willing to have it be an agreement, and pre-Alert it, and so on, fine. If he's not going to do that, but occasionally "psych" something, and it always seems like the psychs are against the weaker players, and it seems like he gets away with it because his partner "has sympathy" for his "little adventures" (but plays straight against the stronger pairs, where there are no "little adventures"), then the ACBL has a policy for you.

[sanst]

helene_t, on 2016-November-24, 16:22, said:

Hopefully this refers only to things like making sarcastic remarks etc. Anything might annoy or embarrass certain players. Heck, playing good bridge annoys some players.

Also to an intimidating table presence.