[Antrax]

Matchpoints, none vul
♠Ax
♥Axx
♦KQJxx
♣QTx

P-(P)-1NT-(2♠*)
P-(P) to me. My bid?

* alerted as "spades and a minor", presumably 5-5

[BunnyGo]

Pass. Partner could have said something. I have nothing new to add to the conversation, no extraordinary quick tricks, distribution, or other stuff partner didn't know about.

[Flameous]

Automatic double. I have excellent undisclosed 5 card suit, shortness in opponent's suit and all my values are working except ♣Q.
If this isn't double, I might as well play penalty doubles after 1NT getting overcalled.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

It all depends on your agreement about a double from p, do you play penalty or T/O.

If you play T/O, you have to act, because he may hold length in their suit, and had
no bid.

We play T/O, so I would bid, either X or 3D, against Y speaks, that you only have 3
hearts, and you have a good 5 card suit, so ... take your pick.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

I play take out doubles, I would surely double with the given hand, esp. at mps.
The only downside is that you have just Axx in hearts. This is a big drawback, but you cannot have it all. Second choice would be a very ugly 3 ♦ bid (just to show how much sympathy I have for a pass...)

[Antrax]

We play TO.

[Quartic]

Instant double if it's takeout, instant pass if double is penalties.

[Antrax]

I thought it's a clear X, the director took my X away because my partner apparently hesitated and my opponents were into bunny bashing.

[han]

 Antrax, on 2012-February-22, 02:07, said:

my opponents were into bunny bashing.

What did you mean by this? If one opponent thinks for a long time before passing and the 1NT opener reopens with a double, that's a pretty good reason to call the director in order to protect yourself. Do you mean that because you and your partner are such beginners your opponents should not call the director on you?

[Antrax]

I mean my opponents took every advantage they could, from near-psychic overcalls to appealing informally after the director ruled in our favour. The complete story is a bit long, but basically:
a) My partner didn't break tempo, in my opinion, or at least I hadn't noticed as such.
b) The director didn't bother asking us whether or not there was a BIT.
c) The director didn't ask any of us what the double means. He assumed it would be penalty (?) in his initial explanation of what in my hand would qualify regardless of partner's pause.
d) The director looked at my hand before play began, and informed the opponents that I have my bid (thanks, director!)
e) Declarer played poorly to go down 1. He should've made unless he expects my partner to lead the Q of trump from AQJ of trumps or so.
f) After the hand, the director again informed us there was no damage, and table result stands. The opponents suggested he ask another player, one who is apparently very good.
g) After the round was over, the director reversed his ruling, based on the word of that player. I don't know who he is, and I don't know if he knows what my skill level is or what our agreements are in this position.

So, I don't think my opponents broke any rules, but I do accuse them of newbie bashing. And obviously, I don't plan to play at that club again, because the director really seemed quite bad, more eager to please than to rule according to the rulebook. Probably if I'd started protesting after (g) he'd have overturned his ruling again, or tried to gauge whose feelings would be hurt more.

[han]

The director could not have done a worse job. His comment that you had your bid was absurd (of course he should never comment about your hand before the hand is over). Not asking you whether you agreed that there was a hesitation is wrong and insulting. His assumption that double is penalty without asking you shows that he is not a good bridge player himself.

The world is full of bridge players who try to get as many points as possible. I don't have a problem with that as long as they stay within the rules. Unfortunately there are also a lot of very bad directors, which is not surprising because directing well is very difficult. It is a shame though.

By the way, it sounds as if the opponents weren't very good, and it also sounds like you have a very clear grasp of both the bridge side and the rules side regarding this hand. Your double also makes you look like you knew exactly what you were doing. In no way does this come across as bunny-bashing, perhaps you write too well.

[Antrax]

I could be just as convicted of a completely wrong action or situation. I know a lot of principles, I just don't know how to balance them properly (i.e. I have very little experience). So sometimes I'd do things like discount 6 HCP because I expect them to be poorly placed and we miss a cold game, and the same day I jump to game opposite a simple raise of a major with 13 HCP because I read Mike Lawrence the night before and I figure my points are "working".
Thus, I still consider myself a bunny. If you're playing in mgoetze's tournament on Sunday, you'll get to see it firsthand

(About the opponents, they're not experts by any stretch, they're exactly the right level of intermediate to be able to wreak havoc with our own bidding)

[billw55]

 Antrax, on 2012-February-22, 04:03, said:

And obviously, I don't plan to play at that club again

I really don't understand people going to these lengths in a club game. Nothing is at stake. I have played for years at our local club and I cannot recall a single director call for a BIT in all those games. Everybody seems to agree that it's just not worth the fuss. Almost all the dircetor calls are obvious irregularities such as revokes, insufficient bids, LOOTs, etc, that really need a director to proceed properly. On rare occasion maybe a failure to alert. But nothing like this that I have ever seen.

[BunnyGo]

 billw55, on 2012-February-22, 07:42, said:

Nothing is at stake.

But how else well you show them you're the best?!

[Antrax]

To me, a director who is more concerned with pleasing his customers than he is with doing what's right is a big no-no. I want to know I'll get the fair and correct ruling regardless of who is involved. Also, there's a certain type of players that are drawn to such people, and mostly I don't want to play with those players.

[wyman]

+1 to TOX

[han]

I really don't understand people going to these lengths in a club game. Nothing is at stake.

Billw, who are you to say that nothing is at stake? Do you know these people? Perhaps this club game is the biggest club game for them, perhaps one of them has only 2 more weeks to live and wants to win one club game before his life ends. It's not your business to judge whether they should be trying to win or not. If I play at my club I try to take the bridge seriously, not in the least because I play there with my regular partner and it is good practice. At my club we play two team matches per evening, and we usually play with our regular teammates. If we play badly and lose to a considerably weaker pair or team I'm seriously annoyed. (I'm also annoyed when we lose against a considerably better team, but that's just me.)

So I don't agree that nothing is at stake and they shouldn't play to win.

they're exactly the right level of intermediate to be able to wreak havoc with our own bidding

Trying to make life difficult in the auction or play is an integral part of the game and blaming this pair for doing so is completely unfair.

[Phil]

 han, on 2012-February-22, 10:42, said:

I really don't understand people going to these lengths in a club game. Nothing is at stake.

Billw, who are you to say that nothing is at stake? Do you know these people? Perhaps this club game is the biggest club game for them, perhaps one of them has only 2 more weeks to live and wants to win one club game before his life ends. It's not your business to judge whether they should be trying to win or not.

WD Han. I have a visual of a poor old guy on oxygen calling the director over a hesitation.

POTY nominee.

[han]

Haha, sometimes you have to go to extremes in order to make a point.

One more comment to Antrax, who may get the feeling that I'm strongly arguing against him while I'm really not. From what I read between the lines these people were probably quite unpleasant, and the director was quite incapable. However, most directors make mistakes, and all reasonably sized clubs or groups feature some unpleasant people. Perhaps if you stop considering yourself as a Bunny and start looking at yourself as the Smart but Inexperienced Player who is a Lot More Grown Up Than These Opponents you'll be able to shrug off such unavoidable encounters.

Although it is just as easily possible that this club is just a terrible place and you are better off never going back there, hard for me to say.

[billw55]

 han, on 2012-February-22, 10:42, said:

I really don't understand people going to these lengths in a club game. Nothing is at stake.

Billw, who are you to say that nothing is at stake? Do you know these people? Perhaps this club game is the biggest club game for them, perhaps one of them has only 2 more weeks to live and wants to win one club game before his life ends. It's not your business to judge whether they should be trying to win or not. If I play at my club I try to take the bridge seriously, not in the least because I play there with my regular partner and it is good practice. At my club we play two team matches per evening, and we usually play with our regular teammates. If we play badly and lose to a considerably weaker pair or team I'm seriously annoyed. (I'm also annoyed when we lose against a considerably better team, but that's just me.)

So I don't agree that nothing is at stake and they shouldn't play to win.

they're exactly the right level of intermediate to be able to wreak havoc with our own bidding

Trying to make life difficult in the auction or play is an integral part of the game and blaming this pair for doing so is completely unfair.

Wow, hardcore dude!

Of course trying to win is entirely appropriate. Lawyering up a result by leaning on the TD is another matter, IMO. Still, at the club I wouldn't object - like I said, it isn't worth the fuss to me. If it's that important to him, then fine. But I might lose some respect for him, depending on the entirety of the circumstances.