DEFENCE  
NEVER
SEEMS
TO BE A
PROBLEM
FOR 
JOHNNY
.....
.....

The other day I was sitting East defending a regulation 3NT shown above ......and surprise surprise  my partner found the only lead to give declarer a problem , namely a spade.

At my table declarer eventually triumphed with 4C, 4S and 1D to get his 9 tricks. Indeed, looking at all four hands it is difficult to see how the defence can arrive at 5 tricks ?

However , when scoring up  the bridgemate revealed that one declarer had failed , and this was because Johnny Supremo had been defending the contract !  

Sitting East , he had managed to work out the killing line of play...... all in a matter of seconds. 

His partner too had led a spade , and when Johnny played his jack declarer swiftly covered it with the Ace. Straightaway , he set about clubs . West ducked the first round but was forced to take the next with his bullet . Again a passive spade was returned by West . Clearly , either a heart or diamond switch would have proved fatal. So yet again declarer was back in hand by taking the trick with the spade 10. 

Sensibly , he played the heart queen next , which  without blinking Johnny took with the Ace. But what did the great man do next , one might ask ?

The answer of course was to resist temptation of a diamond switch....but to play a third spade into dummy's KQ .  Declarer , poor sod , was now locked in dummy  quite content to enjoy his black suit winners......but at what cost ? For as he set about cashing out these lovely winners , the reality of what was unfolding soon filled him with horror. He was squeezing himself to death , and nothing could stop Johnny smiling away as the defence calmly gathered up the last three tricks. 

EXPULSION OF MEMBERS : A CAUTIONARY TALE.......
( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )

Having covered this topic ,  in earlier articles , from several  different points of view and perspectives , I sincerely believe that all bridge club committees should take on board the following advice : study very closely all the constitutional rules which relate to the disciplinary process , especially when it results in a member being expelled.

In Lee v The Showman's Guild of GB , Lord Denning was of the opinion that a court has a right to intervene , where there was a contractual relationship between the parties , and where the committee's decision to expel  could not be justified , given a lack of supporting evidence.

However , in a more recent high profile Malaysian case ,  the judge posed a more pertinent question : to what extent can the court intervene into the affairs of private clubs and/or unincorporated associations ? His view was that courts should always be prepared to examine the decision , if there are genuine concerns as to whether the tribunal/committee had observed the law. Moreover , this observance includes the correct interpretation of its own constitutional rules.

So naturally , he proceeded to give an illustration along the following lines. If say a committee is given power by its rules to expel a member for  gross misconduct , such as  violent or threatening behaviour , does that mean.........

( a) the behaviour has to be both violent and threatening.... or..... is it only necessary to prove one type to the exclusion of the other ?

(b)  the committee is the sole judge of what constitutes " violent "  and " threatening " behaviour ?  

With regards to the first question , the issue is whether or not the word  "or " really intended  mutual exclusivity . If the word  " either " had preceded the word  " or " then the  answer would be definitely yes. But what if the word " or "  had  been an incorrect substitute for  " and " requiring both elements to be present to establish gross misconduct ?  Indeed , a third possibility might exist  if  "and " had been omitted from the intended phrasing "and/or " , where all options were open.    Not an easy interpretation to make.

However , it is the second question which is far more likely to be relevant. Suppose the committee had put an entirely wrong construction on the words, by saying  that " waving a fist at a player several yards  away "  fell easily  within their rather wide interpretation of what " threatening  behaviour "  should embrace . However , it is the court's role to judge  what words actually mean within a given context  , and as such it might well take a different  albeit  a much narrower   interpretation of its meaning . A guiding principle often used is based on the argument that the alleged offender cannot guilty of threatening behaviour if no reasonable man could so find. In other words , if no reasonable man would ever consider  waving a fist in the air several yards away as constituting a real and immediate threat to anyone's physical safety then no offence has been committed.  Therefore, if the club member had been expelled for just a demonstrative and theatrical gesture , then surely he is entitled to seek a remedy in law.

In conclusion , it seems that the court might well adopt the following rationale for resolving all such disputes. When the member joins the club , he only agrees to the committee exercising jurisdiction according to a correct and true interpretation of the rules..... and not according to a wrong and incorrect interpretation. One for instance  which could have come  about as a result of either a ground swell of bias against the accused, or as a consequence of the committee's fierce determination to implement strict new zero tolerance policies.

So the message is clear for all bridge club committees. It pays to seek legal advice over every contentious step of the disciplinary process,  including of course the original drafting of the words used in the constitution , and the subsequent interpretation of words where the meaning is suddenly thrown  in doubt . Clearly,  any meaning arrived at  needs to be logical, sensible and not too wide, if only to reduce the risk of court action ,  because ignorance and contempt of the law could easily allow incorrect interpretations to take place , leading  of course to wrongful expulsions .   

               

THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY.......

• Seat - the target area of a well aimed kick ,  demonstrating to great effect the extreme disapproval of partner's play 
• Pack - a term used to describe predatory players of an unforgiving nature , who team up together in pursuit of easy prey
• Cross - what one has to bear when required to partner a numpty
• Enter ( dummy ) - to have it off with a life-size inflatable bridge player
• Force - what a fat bastard uses to get to the front of the buffet queue
• Go down - a term used in conjunction with " on one's knees "  to beg forgiveness for being so inept at bridge
• Open room - the place where one is most likely to find players bidding and making cold contracts
• Closed room - the place where the elite like to play to the exclusion of the riff raff
• Kick back - what any sensible red blooded player will do when provoked by an opponent
• Re-entry - a common occurrence when players are ( a) easily aroused , ( b) keen to score again ,  and ( c) blessed with unbelievable stamina  
• Unmakeable - a term used to label an attractive young female player , who has no interest whatsoever in sex. Other adjectives  often used to describe such a cold fish include impenetrable , inscrutable and insurmountable
• Deuce - a useless card destined never to make a trick . The term was originally used in 1936  by a visiting french bridge player to Stockport BC,  who on being dealt one hand after another with loads of twos screamed out " what the deuce is going on ? "  . This rhetorical question was purely aimed at conveying his extreme displeasure over picking up such lowly cards.  

THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY..........

• Rescue  - an act occasionally carried out by concerned onlookers ,  who feel duty bound to protect a fellow member from his/her physically aggressive partner
• Ist position - the place where fat obnoxious players set out to occupy, when forming a  queue for the mid-interval buffet 
• 2nd position - the place where one expects to find the pot-bellied partner of the guy in front 
• Open pairs - an event which requires all well endowed  women to turn up in low slung dresses with plunging neck-lines 
• Double jump -  an unexpected bonus when teaming up with a more than willing partner
• First round - what the members of a winning team expect their captain to buy
• Bridge World - a strange and mysterious place full of geeks , social misfits and grumpy old people
• Dealer - one who  is renown for " pushing " , " sniffing " , and enjoying a " bit of crack "
• Turn - what mardy players tend to do when things go wrong
• Individual movement - a tragic consequence of being an incontinent bridge player

DR. JOHN'S CASE NOTES .........

The following information has been put together as a summary of my 5 year research into awkward , cantankerous, mule-headed, non-cooperative , extremely moody players. A good 40% of any club membership !

These are players who refuse to listen
                                   refuse to follow instructions and/or advice
                                   refuse to play to the agreed system
                                   refuse to lead back what you want
                                   refuse to bid their hand properly
                                   refuse to behave in an appropriate manner
                                   refuse to apologise, explain or even speak at all

These disciples of Dark Lord have what we psycho-analysts call a PERVASIVE REFUSAL SYNDROME . Normally associated with children and young teenagers , this shocking and highly disturbing condition also affects large numbers of bridge players, who are well into their 50's and beyond. The unusual state of affairs can be explained by the fact that the game of bridge causes many players to regress into their infant-like inner-selves, displaying all the character traits of Jung's  classic archetypal child : one who loves to challenge those in authority ,  by first  engaging in acts of infantile defiance before  " turning  " themselves into cold, immovable , emotionless statues. 

When things do not go well at the table table ,  and concerned partners  start to voice their concerns , the chronic PRS victims immediately go into a shut-down and lock-down mode. One form of refusal is quickly followed by another.  Indeed, my research suggests  they all  seem to develop a premorbid personality, where having started out with high self-expectations and visions of great scoring achievements , their response to coping with failure is to switch off completely.  As more effort is put into restoring communication with them , in the hope of resuming partnership normality , the more determined their resistance becomes .

I have seen victims slump in the chairs , almost into the foetal position , exhibiting a form of learned helplessness from the time as children  they experienced  traumatic stress disorders. Selective mutism is the most common symptom, alongside a whole range of somatoform disorders , such as a refusal to participate in any social or helpful activities , such as shuffling the cards , passing over the boards , checking the scores ,  making small talk,  and so on.

Victims seem driven to  create awkward atmospheres , by choosing to stay stubbornly silent and unresponsive. What little speech is used is barely audible , being either grunts or high pitched whines. In a nutshell ,  PRS turns players into complete bastards , who not only refuse to acknowledge they have a serious debilitating problem , but utterly refuse to consider any form of treatment. In other words they are " goners " and the bizarre world of bridge is stuck with them.    

                                          

AN OPEN LETTER FROM DR.JOHN.......

Dear Readers ,

The moment you entered the bizarre world of bridge , you unfortunately declared yourself as a "potential clients " for money grabbing psycho-analysts , who were wisely setting up practices in your local neighbourhoods .

When I first visited my local bridge club I quickly realised what a lucrative source of business I had fortuitously stumbled upon. Never in my life had I seen so many people under the same roof needing my services . Almost everyone I met or observed " had problems " , which left unattended would have required me at  stage to have quite a few sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

But what was even more amazing was the vast array of different syndromes , complexes , phobias and other psychological/personality disorders that only related  to bridge players  . Indeed , the more I researched into this phenomenon the more I realised that it was the game itself that brought on, and exacerbated , the symptoms of their disturbing afflictions. Bridge was clearly a mind changing drug ,  which simply triggered their inner demons to run rampant and take control. So part of my ongoing training , as with many other caring  practioners , involved taking up a religious oath in order to practice exorcism .

Tragically , only a few sufferers ever stepped forward me begging for help , willing and able to  acknowledge their deteriorating and highly embarrassing conditions . Others were brought kicking and screaming to my surgery by concerned friends and relatives , but always choosing to remain in stubborn self-denial . 

So I beg you to look at yourself as a bridge player and recognise the quirky , unusual and odd behaviours you have adopted since taking up this game . Accept the reality that bridge clubs are mad houses and theatres of the absurd. Therefore , by looking back at and reviewing my numerous posts , you can to some extent undertake a self-diagnosis , which could well be the starting point for your recovery. 

Yours touting as always for business,  Dr. John 

WHY
.....
WHY
.....
WHY
..... 

DO I

ALWAYS

FALL

FOUL

OF

SMART-

ARSED

DECLARERS ?

( Another tale of woe from Howard Bigot-Johnson )

This bloody game is causing me to develop a persecution complex big time. Why just the other day when I needed just a semi-decent score on the last very board to win the trophy of my dreams , I ended up with a rank bottom........courtesy of a declarer , who relied on his brilliance  , or unbelievable luck , to stumble upon the only way of bringing home the very popular 5D contract.

Looking at the full deal above , it seems that  most declarers will come to 3 losers ( 2H and 1C). After the queen of clubs opening lead , many of them obviously pinned their hopes on a 3-3 break in spades, ruffing the 3rd round ready to lob away two losers from clubs and/or hearts. But the 4-2 spade break scuppered their plans , inviting them to turn their attention to hearts.....hoping of course the Ace was with East. SInce there was no joy there... the score sheet was littered with 4D tick , or 5D-1.
However , at my table declarer took the opening club with dummy's Ace. Next , he played one cautious round of trumps , before playing the Ace/king of spades . At trick 5 a low spade was played from dummy, but then the bad break came to light. Ruffing with the jack he returned to dummy with a trump.  Now came the 4th spade on which declarer made the key play ( or hapless guess ) of discarding a club from hand . 
This meant I had been  well and truly end played with only hearts left in my hand. Forced to take the Ace of hearts , declarer had no difficulty whatsoever in wrapping up 11 winners, just losing the one spade and one heart .
So I ask myself....why is it that I get constantly thwarted, or should I say pulled up , just as I'm about to cross the finishing line ? Am I cursed ...or is it that God just doesn't like me ? Either way , coming second is like coming last....you're in amongst the losers , also-rans and wasters. And I don't like it one bit......

  

 " THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE " DEPT :
 CARDINALS BC ETHICS AND  ETIQUETTE SUB- COMMITTEE v. BIGOT-JOHNSON ( 2009 )
It came as no surprise to anyone to see  Bigot being first up to  face charges of unethical behaviour , having brazenly signed a written confession about his questionable habits over the bidding and play of the cards. What follows next is a short extract from the hearing's transcript .

- Do you Bigot plead guilty to pulling cards out of your hand before it's your turn to play ? 

- Yes.....and I have submitted a written confession to that effect

- So what explanation do you have for this unacceptable practice ?

- Well , being an impetuous and impatient man , I like to crack on with both the bidding and play of the cards . I firmly believe in the principle of preparedness and so I know exactly what I'm going to do........ since it is so easy to predict the actions of others at the table

- But surely , this premature detachment of cards ......apart from being highly  unethical....doesn't make good bridge sense

- True....but I'm very good , for instance , at predicting what bid or card my RHO is going to play , such is the wooden thinking of most players I encounter . Moreover , there are many situations where I have no sensible alternative.......

- So tell me .....what is an opposition declarer  supposed to do ,  when pondering over what to play from dummy...... if you are waiting there. ....ready to play your pre-selected card ? 

- Yes , I can see how that might unnerve declarer....or perhaps put him under pressure to play faster......but hell it's the slowness of some players that is reducing this game to one of terminal boredom

- So have you anything more to say on this matter

- No.....other than to apologise for all my past misdemeanours . Furthermore , I solemnly swear not to force the tempo of the game , and to restrain my impetuous urges...... only reaching for a card when it is my turn to play

- Well I never....we are all very pleased to hear this, but despite the fact you have been very honest , upfront and apologetic , we cannot ignore the gravity of your misconduct. Therefore , we intend to publish your name on the club's newly conceived NAME AND SHAME NOTICE BOARD , which will feature every member found guilty of bad and shameful behaviour at the bridge tables

- Fair enough....so am I now free to go ?

- Regretfully no.....it appears you are also down for today's fourth hearning concerning your ultra quick passes over opponents' opening one-level bids......which in our view are clearly unethical by conveying obvious , albeit unauthorised ,  information about your hand to partner....

- Bugger....

BIGOT

ADMITS

HE WAS

WELL

AND

TRULY

FORKED !

..........

How Bigot cursed the day Morton's Fork came into being. Indeed , it was King Henry VII's chancellor ,  Cardinal Morton , who extracted taxes from London merchants with comfortable lifestyles on the grounds that could obviously afford to pay : and also from those that lived frugally , but  this time on the grounds that they must have salted their money away. This argument became known as Morton's Fork.

In bridge terms ,  this is a play that screws up a defender big time , whichever  way he chooses to play.  When such a manoeuvre was used to "f....k" Bigot , he becomes a very unhappy bunny. 

The contract was 3NT with South as declarer, and so Bigot confidently kicked off with the queen of spades. However , this South after taking the trick with the spade Ace spurned the diamond finesse !  Instead , he elected to lead a low club towards dummy's King. Bigot was well and truly f.....ked . 

If he rose with the Ace, declarer was home with 4C, 2S, 2H and 1D. If he ducked , then the king of clubs would hold , enabling declarer to switch to diamonds, happy to make instead 4D , 2H, 2S and 1C . 

Incensed like a rampant bull inside a cage full of waving red rags , Bigot rounded on South , who just happened to be the great Johnny Supremo  , spitting feathers like there was no tomorrow : " How come you declined taking the diamond finesse at trick 2 ........you bugger ? "

The answer was as swift as it was cutting : " You sir , by making that vulnerable 2 level overcall in spades made the contract a simple formality...... clearly , you were either in possession of the Ace of clubs or the king of diamonds. If you held the club Ace, I was home and dry ,  and even  if you didn't then I would succeed in 3NT anyway.... by simply picking up your diamond king. "

    

BRIDGE CLUBS : THE THORNY PROBLEM OF DISCIPLINING MEMBERS REVISITED............... ( Article by professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )

Disciplining members is an issue that every bridge faces from time to time. It is the nature of the game and the tragedy of the human condition. But even when  clubs have formal disciplinary procedures in place , as drawn up in their constitutions , massive problems can still arise. These usually involve situations where there has been a lamentable failure to comply with all the requirements of natural justice.

Problems tend to surface when no officer on the committee has the appropriate legal knowledge or training ,  with a firm grasp of what lawyers call  " due process ". Ignorance of these matters usually means only one thing : they get overlooked. Moreover , it's often the case that  the wider membership remains blissfully ignorant of whether their organisation  even has a written constitution , or if it does , what its contents might be. Assuming then the committee members are aware of the club's constitution , it's not guaranteed that they know the precise meaning , and legal implications , of the words used in the document , and how exactly the rules , regarding disciplinary procedures ,  should be interpreted and implemented  if they are to comply with rules of natural justice.

Paying lip service compliance to the procedural steps laid in the disciplinary process does not necessarily add up to compliance with rules of natural justice. Here the decision makers need to do more than go through the procedural motions : they must set out and embrace fully a spirit of fairness , impartiality , objectivity and open-mindedness. But this of course is easier said than done.

Far too many committee members, when dealing with unpopular troublemakers , enter discussions  with  closed minds ,  and a fierce determination not to be persuaded  or distracted  from " taking appropriate action ". The idea that anyone  can become an impartial , objective , and unbiased person ,  completely open to persuasion at the drop of a hat ,  is pure fantasy. The human condition does not allow it , but the courts will look to see if club management teams have set out to achieve such noble ideals. 

Freedom from bias perhaps is the hardest thing to achieve in small bridge clubs, where close, cosy relationships are common place ,  and everyone has " an opinion " on everybody else. This main risk of course is that committee members may base their decisions on a negative experience or encounter with the accused , which is bound to prejudice their judgement. In such circumstances it would be both prudent and wise for any jaundiced committee member to own up to  his/her personal animosity towards the accused ,  thereby abstaining from any discussion , or voting , on the matter in question.

In a recent Scottish case involving a golfer , challenging his expulsion from his club , a judicial review was called for.  With so many mistakes made ,  the club was rounded upon  by the judge for operating its disciplinary process  ( and AGMs ) in a manner and way that resembled a kangaroo court .

So where did this golf committee go wrong ?

Firstly , the petitioner was not invited to attend the disciplinary hearing  which sealed his fate . Indeed, he was never informed , or forewarned , that his membership was at risk, and possibly up for termination . He was not made aware of the other charges that were made against him at this meeting , denying him the opportunity to state his case or offer a defence.  The committee had acted in an  ultra vires way when using AGMs to secure endorsements from the wider membership for its questionable decisions. Indeed , the club had breached rules of natural justice on numerous occasions. It was also held that the petitioner had a right to be present to see that rules of natural justice were being observed ,  but since he was denied this right , decisions leading to both suspension and expulsion were therefore declared null and void .  This oversight by the committee proved to be the final nail in the club's financial coffin. 

Not surprisingly , the upshot of this case was that the expelled golfer secured a  judicial ruling for reinstatement ,  with his costs and expenses to be met by the club.

So important lessons need to be taken on board by all bridge club committees.  For if they take on quasi-judicial proceedings then additional  legal obligations fall upon them . The notion of  giving the accused a fair summary of the reasons for the decision to expel him may be a discretionary right , but one which should be given him anyway when considering the degree of  seriousness attached to cases involving expulsions.  Similarly ,  giving the accused the opportunity beforehand to see the evidence put forward by the committee to support their decisions is also a wise and prudent move. But more importantly , no member should ever be expelled without his/her presence at the disciplinary hearing.  And to justify not allowing the accused to attend a hearing simply  " because there seemed no point in him/her having one " is a damning indictment of bias and prejudgement. Failing to seek legal advice at crucial times is also another colossal oversight. Failing to allow the accused legal representation at an internal appeal hearing might well be viewed by any court as " a little naive " , if the committee wishes to demonstrate its fair and impartial attitude and approach. 

When the remote possibility of a court action suddenly changes to one of a racing certainty , club committees must hope that within their constitution rules and regulations  they have the power to refer the dispute to mediation or arbitration. In the absence of such a flexible option , then such a move should be sought anyway with the cooperation of the petitioner.  It is far better to act in a prudent and wise way at the outset ,  rather than adopting a confrontational stance.  Common sense dictates that both sides are far better off seeking and negotiating a compromise position,  because otherwise the legal bills will start to rocket. Sensible choices in life usually involve picking the lesser of two evils. So unless a club is 100% confident it has  scrupulously followed its own disciplinary procedures without any hint of bias ,  or acting in bad faith , and any breaches of natural justice rules, then the only other sensible option to follow up is this :  seek agreement to organise a rehearing of the case by a completely outside , totally impartial , independent    body , where legal expertise is not in short supply .......with both sides fully prepared to accept and uphold its decision .