Dust ups

Two(!) dustups at the club marred an otherwise interesting session Friday morning.

Why?  Because I am too much of a legalist?  Because opponents don’t respect the rules of the game?   Because directors fail to establish the right atmosphere?  Because the game was on Friday the 13^th?  (Probably all of the above.)

Alas, you are getting the facts from only one person, but I will try to be as dispassionate and fair as I can.

Board 3 was the first dustup.  Our opponents are a regular partnership, pretty successful in the club game and in tournaments, with a total of approximately 11,000 master points.  (In other words, about 3-4 times the total of my partnership.)  On Board 1, they miss a good slam, conducting an auction that never even sniffed at the possibility of a contract above 4♥.  On the second board, partner and I conduct a nice auction to reach 4♥.

As South chooses to write down the final contract before, rather than after, her opening lead, I follow my usual practice of asking to look at RHO’s convention card to learn their lead and carding methods.  The card is completed; in the section on leads against suits, nothing is highlighted differently from the pre-printed, meaning, as relevant here, that they lead K from AK and length.

South leads the ♦A, and then switches to the ♣2.  I duck the club and win the club return, thankful to not have run into a ruff.  After drawing trumps and playing all the winning clubs and my last trumps, I reach a two-card end position: with my last heart being played, I have my spade and the ♦Q.  South must keep the protected ♠K and so discards the ♦K (so much for leading the K from AK and length).  Making 5 on the showup squeeze.  And, as is almost always the case, a showup squeeze is just a fancy way of getting the same number of tricks available by taking a simple finesse.

Here is Board 3.

Again South leads a minor suit ace.  This time I choose to ask North about their leads from AK and length.

“Against notrump we lead A to ask for unblock or count and K to ask for attitude.”

“But what about against suits?”

“I don’t know.”

“You mean you don’t have any agreement in your partnership about what to lead from AK and length?”

“That’s what I said.”

(No doubt with my voice tone showing some exasperation and incredulity), I continue: “Last hand your partner led A from AK and length, but your convention card is marked K from AK and length: is your convention card incorrect and you lead randomly between the two cards?”

“I told you what our agreement is”.

“Director”, I call.

When the director arrives, North tries to take over the conversation.  “I told him what was our agreement, and he keeps asking”.  I tell the director that their convention card is marked K from AK and the previous hand they led A from AK and I am now being told that their leads from AK are random.  I just want to get a straight answer, is what I am being told correct and they should change their convention card, or is the convention card correct and what I am being told is wrong?  I just want to know what their methods are when I see conflicting information.

Just complete the hand, says the director, leaving the table and not suggesting any change be made to the convention card.

South fails to give her partner a club ruff, and when in later with the ♣K, leads back the ♥Q, so that I can’t misguess the heart position.  +170.

North continues to harangue during the hand and afterwards about how I kept asking after she told me their agreements.  But, of course, she undertakes no effort to change their convention card.

Board 20 is the second dustup.  Here North is a Grand Life Master of known short fuse, and his partner a fine player, very taciturn.  I hold ♠AQ953, ♥2, ♦QT76, ♣984.  Partner opens 1♥.  I respond 1♠ and partner splinters to 4♣.  North doubles.  I can see slam possibilities opposite a hand that might not even be strong enough to have forced to game, say ♠KJxx, ♥Axxxxx, ♦AK, ♣x.  I don’t want to signoff in 4♠.  With no control card, perhaps I should bid 5♠, but I decide to bid 4♦.  Partner bids 4♥, and, having made one slam try, I now bid 4♠.  Partner passes.

Personally, I think partner has overbid: raising to just 3♠ would be plenty, but, of course, we would end in the contract I am playing nonetheless.

A club is led to North’s ace and a spade is returned.  I win the ♠Q in hand and lead a heart to the king and North’s ace.  Another spade is continued.  This one I win in dummy and play ♥Q, pitching a club, and a third round of hearts, ruffing in hand and getting the good news about the split.  As I am checking the order of my play to ensure that I transport correctly to draw trumps, ruff a club and pitch three diamonds on the good hearts, North interjects “don’t you have the ♦K?”.  I don’t answer.  “Don’t you have the ♦K?” he repeats, even more loudly.  Again I do not answer. “Why are we playing this hand?”, he insists even more loudly.  I ruff a club small, play a high spade from dummy to draw the last trump and then claim, saying I am pitching three diamonds on the hearts and then playing the ♦A.  +650.

Now North turns toward me and blurts “asshole!”.  I call the director.  Again my opponent begins to take over the conversation after I had called the director.  “This guy is always out to bust my chops”, he says.  (I have had run-ins with him before, as have about a zillion others.)  “He psyched a diamond cue bid without a control”.  (An aside: I may not be current on these matters, but I recall that reportable psyches are limited to one’s first bid; my 4♦ call, at worst, is the bidding equivalent of a falsecard.)  “He called me an asshole”, I complain to the director.  Exhibiting more skills at amending a comment than he did at conducting the defense, North says “I was referring to myself for not returning a diamond”.  The director admonishes no one, but does decide to hover around the table for a while.

What are the causes of all this?  Can’t we – even at a club game – and especially for experienced players, just play by the rules?