A sad story
Paul Marston
You hold
10xxx, -, xxx, Qxxxxx
You pass as does LHO. Partner opens a limited 1H and you respond 2C. Partner
raises to 3C and everyone passes. She makes quite easily.
LHO, who asked about the 2C and was told that it is natural, calls the
director and complains that she didn't know it could be this weak. She held
KQxxx, Axxx, Jx, Jx.
The score is changed to 4S making 5.
Partner had a 2524, 9 count. And RHO had an 18 count!
At the other table your teammates play 6H down two on the 5-0 trump break.
Lose 13.
Is this the gladiator sport of bridge where you fight to make the best
result with your cards or is it a game that is wrapped tight in regulations
so that every move must be selected from a sanitized list of options?
I wouldn't be so depressed about this if it was isolated to the ACBL but I
understand that the French inspired WBF is moving in the same direction.
Their intentions may be good but I think that have completely missed the
point.
paul marston
Gerben Dirksen
news:pfJ%f.6217$vy1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This story makes me sad also. And the ruling is ridiculous, anyone who
cannot enter the auction on a combined 29 count does not deserve a plus
score.
Gerben
peter koch
Paul Marston skrev:
Hi Paul
It is amazing that opps with 29 hcps combined can't enter the bidding.
Nevertheless, the explanation of 2C was inadequate and the missing
information (that 2C could be bid on a very weak hand) would indeed be
surprising to most players. Also the missing information did damage the
opps as the spade hand would be more likely to bid had he known that
his partner could hold a very good hand.
Thus I believe the ruling was fair.
/Peter
Lorne
news:pfJ%f.6217$vy1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
It is painful to see a pair who can't bid with 29 pts recover on a ruling
but if 2C can systematically be bid on this hand it was very foolish not to
say it could be very weak when asked - in fact I would alert it if it was
common for it to be bid on hands like this.
If however the 2C bidder departed from system and should have had normal
values the ruling is surely wrong.
Gerben Dirksen
"peter koch" <peter.ko...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1145011286.9...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The ruling cannot be fair, at most you can give the OS -650 but the NOS
cannot stop to play bridge, and in my very humble opinion, they did.
Gerben
Bill Jacobs
news:443f8385$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
Indeed, Paul hasn't really told the full story. He hasn't included why the
score was adjusted, or whether there was an appeal.
My simplistic thoughts are like yours ... if 2C could systemically be weak,
then it wasn't properly explained; if 2C was a psyche, then it seems hard
to find an infraction.
Cheers ... Bill.
ewleo...@hotmail.com
I am not sure one should presume the National ACBL Director who made
the ruling is an idiot. In my experience, the standard practice is to
consult other directors in the room before making a ruling. So threre
was probably at least two other directors involved and there is always
some sort of logical issue involved. The issue seems to be one of full
disclosure of one's partnership bidding methods. Perhaps, if one
ambushes without full disclosure opponents with a little known and
unfamilar bidding system for a few boards that one is not going to
encounter in say the next solar eclipse the presumption goes to the
opponents. If the ruling is that unfair, you can always appeal to a
committee of your peers which did not seem to happen in this particular
case.
Eric Leong
danny...@aol.com
about the full disclosure many strong club pairs play. Their systems
generally create many oppurtunities for free psychs, and if those
tendencies aren't disclosed in advance, I would have far more sympathy
for the non offeneding pair. Without knowing the players involved, I'd
bet that this is not the first time they have psyched in this or a
similar situation, which then makes it a partnership understanding,
which needs to be alerted.
Danny
Sandy E. Barnes
"Paul Marston" <p...@grandslam.com.au> wrote in message
news:pfJ%f.6217$vy1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
***
Lets see .......... a pass and a limited opening, and a 18 count can not
find a bid. Hmmm ..............................
How strong did we think 2C can be since it could not make a limited openng?
I agree that this is not justice.
Sandy Barnes
***
josp...@aol.com
players bid - 1maj - P - 4maj.
They could have anything from zero points to a 14 count. Since this is
a part of their system it requires an alert. The ability to bid 2
clubs on a zero count is basically due to the fact that they are
playing a limited system and partner cannot hang them.
In auctions of this type it seems that active ethics would dictate an
alert even if the rules do not require one.
Otis Bricker
I'm torn here.
On one side, if that was a systemic 2C, I feel that not disclosing just
how weak 2C could be was a failure on your part. On the other, I have a
hard time rewarding a defender that passes over 1H with a 2461 hand and
18 HCP.
As someone else pointed out, some pairs take advantage of limited
openings to make tactical bids far outside the norm for less limited
systems. I think that this is an advantage to limited openers but also
something that needs to be presented to the opponents.
Otis
John R. Mayne
I agree (but I think the ACBL rules require one.) Further, based on the
description given by the OP, this looks like a totally appropriate
ruling; asking about 2C and getting "natural" when that's a grossly
deficient explanation is straight-up MI.
Without something more - like evidence that this was a rare psych - the
ruling's correct.
And I'm stunned at the assertion that the opponents are supposed to
come in on a combined 29-count when the opps have shown strength.
What's your bid over a standard 1H-P-2C auction with AQx AQx xxxx AKx?
We're almost all passing, right? And that's a 19-count.
On the facts given, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them who got
their score adjusted.
--JRM
Otis Bricker
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> And I'm stunned at the assertion that the opponents are supposed to
> come in on a combined 29-count when the opps have shown strength.
> What's your bid over a standard 1H-P-2C auction with AQx AQx xxxx AKx?
> We're almost all passing, right? And that's a 19-count.
>
> On the facts given, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them who got
> their score adjusted.
>
> --JRM
>
I would like to point out that it was RHO who held the 18 count and her
chance to bid was BEFORE the 'strength' showing 2C. Also, if the other
distributions described are correct, RHO would have held 2461 shape making
an overcall reasonably straight forward.
So it is not that out of line to suggest that some part of the result was
the opponents fault.
Otis
Gerben Dirksen
"Otis Bricker" <obri...@my-dejanews.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns97A5751AF75DAob...@216.196.97.136...
Not only that, there are two possibilities.
1) 2C showed strength - then the actual bid was a psyche
2) 2C did not show strength - then how come no one bid?
Gerben
Peter Clinch
I totally agree. I would like to feel that, following some initial
irrational anger at having missed an easy game, I would be able to
concede that I had been outfoxed on the hand. Calling the director in
this case is mind-boggling; I would be too embarrassed to do so. Having
said that, there is definitely something wrong with an interpretation
of the law that is so skewed that the ruling can be properly made the
way it was.
Peter.
New York, NY.
danny...@aol.com
am not sure what the OP's feeling is, but this question is one we have
a shot at answering. There is definite sentiment on both sides, but
unless the Offending side can show otherwise, I'd lean towards assuming
there was. The second question is of damage, and since we have not
seen all 4 hands, it is a little tough to make a decision there. My
reconstruction, base on what Paul said was that 4th hand had 2461, and
18 points. This seems impossible, I'd bet something is not right, as
no player in 1000 would pass with that. Change one red card and that
hand could hold 2551, and then pass, hoping to get the opponents for a
big penalty seems more likely.
Danny
raija d
"Paul Marston" <p...@grandslam.com.au> wrote in message
news:pfJ%f.6217$vy1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
What a joke of a ruling! Very sad indeed. What a joke of a complaint by
the pair who held 29HCP in the hand and could not find a way to enter the
bidding.
>
>
raija d
"peter koch" <peter.ko...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145011286.9...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Opener bid normally, however, raising clubs. There is no indication that it
was SYSTEMICALLY possible that the bid was this weak. Passed hands can -
and do - make these calls without 10HCP and a pair playing in a National
event is knwledgeable enough to know that. I see no fairness in the ruling.
Peter Clinch
John R. Mayne wrote:
>
> On the facts given, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them who got
> their score adjusted.
>
Wow. I am really surprised by this.
>From the facts given, I can't see there is any evidence that this was a
case of gross negligence to disclose at all.
Do we really think that the opening bidder was anticipating a 2 count
with no fit? Her bidding doesn't suggest that (she hasn't "fielded").
No, she was expecting a hand with clubs not good enough to open the
bidding. And surely her answer, in ACBL land where the universe plays
Drury, was intended to make it clear that this was natural, and not
fit-showing . Otherwise, why is her RHO asking?
It seems rather likely to me that there was no agreement that this
could be an ultra-light response . But what can these poor people do?
It is just assumed to be the agreement, because it happened. If it's
not on the convention card, then that proves nothing to those who
assume negative intent to disclose. So the stealers have their good
result taken away as a result of a misplaced obsession with full
disclosure.
Although I understand the point about strong club, I don't agree that
they need to alert everything, especially in a high quality event.
Everybody knows what a strong club is; there should be no need to issue
a wake-up call for every response to a limited bid.
Sure, call the director - have the psyche recorded. But looking for
redress? Hmmm.
Peter.
New York, NY.
Gerben Dirksen
"Peter Clinch" <double...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1145035510....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The whole alerting policy is flawed if you need to alert every non-SAYC bid
or so. If your basic system is something completely different, your bids are
going to have different inferences and you might well say: "Well opps, I
pre-alert all our bids as we play a strong Club."
Gerben
raija d
"Gerben Dirksen" <ger...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:e1oq3k$krp$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
"Non-SAYC bids" as the basis for alerting does not apply in ACBL so the ACBL
reg is not flawed in this manner :) In defense of ACBL alerting policy,
can you find any alerting regs that are not flawed?
Tim DeLaney
Yes, that is the crux of the matter. If 2C was the system bid that
would routinely be made by both partners, and was not alerted, then the
opponents were damaged and should get redress.
If 2C was *not* systemic, but the partnership occasionally made bids
like this nonetheless, the same applies. ("occasionally" means often
enough to be remembered.)
But if 2C was a unique stroke of genius (a psyche), and partner had no
reason to believe the 2C bidder had anything but clubs and some high
card strength, then the ruling was very bad indeed.
Tim
Gerben Dirksen
"raija d" <must...@charter.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:V5S%f.73$Nz2...@fe03.lga...
As long as bridge federations still have prejudice for one system over
another, there will be no fair alert regulations. My preferred regulations
say: "Do NOT alert natural bids regardless of strength, alert artificial
bids. Take out or penalty doubles never count as artificial."
This means that some conventions that "everyone" plays need to be alerted,
but I don't see that as a loss and if you do it falls into nothing compared
to the gains: No systemic prejudice, clear and simple regulations that
EVERYONE can understand.
Gerben
Adam Beneschan
> I agree (but I think the ACBL rules require one.) Further, based on the
> description given by the OP, this looks like a totally appropriate
> ruling; asking about 2C and getting "natural" when that's a grossly
> deficient explanation is straight-up MI.
>
> Without something more - like evidence that this was a rare psych - the
> ruling's correct.
>
> And I'm stunned at the assertion that the opponents are supposed to
> come in on a combined 29-count when the opps have shown strength.
> What's your bid over a standard 1H-P-2C auction with AQx AQx xxxx AKx?
> We're almost all passing, right? And that's a 19-count.
As someone pointed out, it appears to be the hand over the opening
bidder who had the 18-count, and thus had a chance to bid (or double)
over 1H.
Nevertheless, without more information, it still isn't enough to
convict the passing side of playing egregiously bad bridge. There are
some 18-counts that have awkward problems over a 1H opening bid, in
particular hands with no heart stopper and only a couple spades. It's
not unreasonable to pass on some of those hands. And once the auction
started 1H-2C, it's not unreasonable the 18-count to place his partner
with a yarborough. Actually, even if RHO had a totally standard
takeout double over the opening bid, it's irrelevant because this
mistake occurred before the infraction---ruling that an egregious error
breaks the link between an infraction and damage can be done only if
the error occurred after the infraction. That is, even after a stupid
pass, if 2C really was weak by agreement and RHO should have recovered
from his stupid pass if given the correct information, then there was
definitely damage. So the notion that there can be no damage simply
because E-W had 29 HCP and didn't get to game is just plain wrong.
> On the facts given, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them who got
> their score adjusted.
The TD should have found out whether 2C could be weak by agreement
(including "special information" arising from partnership understanding
or experience). Assuming that he did, we weren't given this
information by the OP; therefore, I don't feel any sympathy for anyone
because I don't feel I have enough information to know whom I should
feel sympathy for.
-- Adam
peter koch
Gerben Dirksen skrev:
> "raija d" <must...@charter.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:V5S%f.73$Nz2...@fe03.lga...
> >
[snip]
> >>
> >> The whole alerting policy is flawed if you need to alert every non-SAYC
> >> bid or so. If your basic system is something completely different, your
> >> bids are going to have different inferences and you might well say: "Well
> >> opps, I pre-alert all our bids as we play a strong Club."
> >>
> >> Gerben
> >
> > "Non-SAYC bids" as the basis for alerting does not apply in ACBL so the
> > ACBL reg is not flawed in this manner :) In defense of ACBL alerting
> > policy, can you find any alerting regs that are not flawed?
>
> As long as bridge federations still have prejudice for one system over
> another, there will be no fair alert regulations. My preferred regulations
> say: "Do NOT alert natural bids regardless of strength, alert artificial
> bids. Take out or penalty doubles never count as artificial."
They might be YOUR preferred regulations - and probably they are not
worse than the ACBL regulations I do not really know.
>
> This means that some conventions that "everyone" plays need to be alerted,
> but I don't see that as a loss and if you do it falls into nothing compared
> to the gains: No systemic prejudice, clear and simple regulations that
> EVERYONE can understand.
>
Fair enough. This is actually more or less the danish rules with the
additional (fuzzy) rule that any bid whose meaning might be a surprise
for the opponents should be alerted. I actually like those rules.
But this i do not see the emphasis on alerts here - is the problem not
an inadequate explanation? The 2C bid apparantly could be on as little
as two points and that fact was not explained to the opponents. Of
course you must explain that fact if it is systemic as well as if it is
non-systemic, but a "known" place to bluff.
> Gerben
/Peter
Eric Kehr
which is believed to be strong (but not strong enough to open in strong
club system) that must be because they believe the risk/reward ratio is
not in their favour. Adding some hands to South which *might* be weak
doesn't necessarily swing the risk/reward ratio significantly enough
towards "reward" that the player would now enter the bidding. I think
you can only conclude they are "more likely to bid" if you know how
often 2C is weak and how often 2C is not weak.
Eric Kehr
richard...@hotmail.com
A number of people posting in this thread have made comments similar to
this one. I'd like to draw attention to the following statement which
has been part of the ACBL alert proceedure for as long as I can
remember:
"Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems
that they may encounter at the bridge table."
Regardless of whether 2C was a pysche or systemic, I find it hard to
believe that the non-offending side deserves protection.
peter koch
Eric Kehr skrev:
> peter koch wrote:
> > Paul Marston skrev:
[snip]
> >
> > Hi Paul
> >
> > It is amazing that opps with 29 hcps combined can't enter the bidding.
> > Nevertheless, the explanation of 2C was inadequate and the missing
> > information (that 2C could be bid on a very weak hand) would indeed be
> > surprising to most players. Also the missing information did damage the
> > opps as the spade hand would be more likely to bid had he known that
> > his partner could hold a very good hand.
> > Thus I believe the ruling was fair.
> >
> > /Peter
> >
> Is the last point valid?If the player is not going to bid after a 2C bid
> which is believed to be strong (but not strong enough to open in strong
> club system) that must be because they believe the risk/reward ratio is
> not in their favour. Adding some hands to South which *might* be weak
> doesn't necessarily swing the risk/reward ratio significantly enough
> towards "reward" that the player would now enter the bidding. I think
> you can only conclude they are "more likely to bid" if you know how
> often 2C is weak and how often 2C is not weak.
>
> Eric Kehr
Is it? Certainly when I decide if I should bid or pass, I will be less
inclined to bid if the logical strain for me is only a partial than if
I have prospects of game.
/Peter
Eric Kehr
Eric
raija d
<richard...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145132214.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Considering it was one of ACBL's highest level competitions, a National
event, I fully agree.
danny...@aol.com
Eric "
There must be some marginal hand that would pass a known to be
constructive hand that is now worth bidding. After all, the opener is
far less likely to be able to double if partner could be broke.
Danny
ewleo...@hotmail.com
Paul Marston wrote:
> Consider this ruling in a women's national event in Dallas...
> You hold
> 10xxx, -, xxx, Qxxxxx
> You pass as does LHO. Partner opens a limited 1H and you respond 2C. Partner
> raises to 3C and everyone passes. She makes quite easily.
> LHO, who asked about the 2C and was told that it is natural, calls the
> director and complains that she didn't know it could be this weak. She held
> KQxxx, Axxx, Jx, Jx.
> The score is changed to 4S making 5.
> Partner had a 2524, 9 count. And RHO had an 18 count!
> At the other table your teammates play 6H down two on the 5-0 trump break.
> Lose 13.
> Is this the gladiator sport of bridge where you fight to make the best
> result with your cards or is it a game that is wrapped tight in regulations
> so that every move must be selected from a sanitized list of options?
> I wouldn't be so depressed about this if it was isolated to the ACBL but I
> understand that the French inspired WBF is moving in the same direction.
> Their intentions may be good but I think that have completely missed the
> point.
> paul marston
I am curious whether you feel you give sufficient disclosure to your
opponents at ACBL National events about your unique unusual bidding
metholds before the round begins for just two boards which are not
going to be ever encounted again. Playing against you in the imp pairs
at the Dallas Nationals after several rounds have passed, your partner
opened 1D and my partner Mark Itabashi overcalled 1H. You bid and your
partner bid and finally you bid again. Now your partner asks me "What
was your partner's 1H bid?" I was a little taken back by the question,
and your partner repeated the question. I asked why would you have to
ask? Your partner's answer was "Because my 1D bid showed five hearts."
To which you interjected "We are not playing that system" So now both
you and your partner have alarm clock knowledge to avoid a major
bidding disaster. So my question to you is if your partner doesn't know
what bidding system he is using how can the opponents be expected to
know? Further, I would submit if your disclosure was adequate, your
partner would at the very least know what bidding system he is playing.
Eric Leong
Eric Kehr
likely it is that South could be weak.
Let us say that the West hand is not strong enough to bid if South is
known to be not weak (we can assume this because West didn't, in fact,
bid in this scenario and that is the whole basis of the ruling). Let us
also assume that if South is *always* weak in this sequence then this
hand is worth a bid (for if he is not worth a bid in this alternate
scenario then the lack of alert hasn't caused the damage). So there must
be a probability of the South hand being weak above which the West hand
is a bid and below which it is a Pass.
Don't we need to at least estimate this probability and also estimate
the probability that South is actually weak before determining if West
was damaged? e.g. If it were the case that the West hand only becomes
worth a bid if there is at least a 25% chance of South being weak, and
this South will be weak only 10% of the time on this sequence, then even
given full disclosure, West doesn't have a bid.
Eric
Paul Marston
> I am curious whether you feel you give sufficient disclosure to your
> opponents at ACBL National events about your unique unusual bidding
> metholds before the round begins for just two boards which are not
> going to be ever encounted again. Playing against you in the imp pairs
> at the Dallas Nationals after several rounds have passed, your partner
> opened 1D and my partner Mark Itabashi overcalled 1H. You bid and your
> partner bid and finally you bid again. Now your partner asks me "What
> was your partner's 1H bid?" I was a little taken back by the question,
> and your partner repeated the question. I asked why would you have to
> ask? Your partner's answer was "Because my 1D bid showed five hearts."
> To which you interjected "We are not playing that system" So now both
> you and your partner have alarm clock knowledge to avoid a major
> bidding disaster. So my question to you is if your partner doesn't know
> what bidding system he is using how can the opponents be expected to
> know? Further, I would submit if your disclosure was adequate, your
> partner would at the very least know what bidding system he is playing.
>
> Eric Leong
>
We had to change from our normal system for all the events except the
vanderbilt. In the non-vandi games we were playing 5 card majors and a
strong club. I stupidly forgot that and I thought my partner had forgotten
to alert and I tried to prevent your side being damaged. As you know, the
director was called so the remaining action was in his hands. So I don't see
what the problem was.
paul
Jürgen R.
wrote:
Do you think people travel across the country expecting to play
against opponents who forget their system?
Particularly if the director intervenes - you have made it impossible
to play the hand.
danny...@aol.com
the probability that South is actually weak before determining if West
was damaged? e.g. If it were the case that the West hand only becomes
worth a bid if there is at least a 25% chance of South being weak, and
this South will be weak only 10% of the time on this sequence, then
even
given full disclosure, West doesn't have a bid.
Eric
This math is all well and good, but the laws suggest directors and
committees rule in the non offending sides favor, when it is close.
Danny
richard...@hotmail.com
> I am curious whether you feel you give sufficient disclosure to your
> opponents at ACBL National events about your unique unusual bidding
> metholds before the round begins for just two boards which are not
> going to be ever encounted again.
MOSCITO is hardly unique or unusual. I readily admit that you might
not play against very often because you live in a rather sheltered part
of the world. However, please don't think that your ignorance about a
fairly well known family of bidding systems is at relevant to the
discussion at hand.
I have no first hand knowledge about the events in question. However,
from the sounds of things, Paul provided misinformation during a match.
This certainly isn't the sort of thing that one hopes to see happen
during a bridge game, particularly an important one. With this said
and done, if you look at the case books for the ACBL Nationals they are
LITTERED with with these types of cases. There are enormous numbers of
examples where players make elementary mistakes regarding their NT
openings, defensive methods, yada yada yada.
The only thing at all special about this incident is that you seem to
have a bug up your ass about the specific definition of the 1D opening.
(You seem aggrieved enough that you've posted about this in one thread
and now are pissing and moaning about it in a completely unrelated
disucssion)
Personally, I couldn't care less if the 1D opening showed Hearts or
Spades or a 0+ Diamonds (denies a 5+ card major). You received
misinformation. Presumably, you received some protection from the
Directors. If you have a specific issue regarding the ruling, please
let us know. If not, drop the subject.
Mike Vaughn
"Paul Marston" <p...@grandslam.com.au> wrote:
> Consider this ruling in a women's national event in Dallas...
> You hold
> 10xxx, -, xxx, Qxxxxx
> You pass as does LHO. Partner opens a limited 1H and you respond 2C. Partner
> raises to 3C and everyone passes. She makes quite easily.
> LHO, who asked about the 2C and was told that it is natural, calls the
> director and complains that she didn't know it could be this weak. She held
> KQxxx, Axxx, Jx, Jx.
> The score is changed to 4S making 5.
> Partner had a 2524, 9 count. And RHO had an 18 count!
> At the other table your teammates play 6H down two on the 5-0 trump break.
> Lose 13.
> Is this the gladiator sport of bridge where you fight to make the best
> result with your cards or is it a game that is wrapped tight in regulations
> so that every move must be selected from a sanitized list of options?
> I wouldn't be so depressed about this if it was isolated to the ACBL but I
> understand that the French inspired WBF is moving in the same direction.
> Their intentions may be good but I think that have completely missed the
> point.
> paul marston
To quote from David Stevenson in another thread:
>
> Stop worrying about what the ACBL in all its wisdom does or does not
> require. To play an ethical and legal game of bridge, you do not
> provide surprises to your opponents in your systemic understandings. You
> are required by the Laws to disclose your methods fully and freely.
>
> As a matter of practicality you do not need to go into great detail
> over something the opponents will expect, and to deny a six card minor
> is quite normal. But to not have a spade stop necessarily is not
> expected, and you must be *very* careful to disclose this carefully,
> especially in answer to a question.
>
> Do you really wish to win because your opponents are ignorant of oyur
> system?
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
> <bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
> Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
The issue is not what systems are allowed, but how you inform your
opponents. Describing
10xxx, -, xxx, Qxxxxx
simply as "natural" is blatant misinformation, and probably should have
drawn a procedural penalty in addition to the adjusted score.
Peter Clinch
Mike Vaughn wrote:
>
> The issue is not what systems are allowed, but how you inform your
> opponents. Describing
>
> 10xxx, -, xxx, Qxxxxx
>
> simply as "natural" is blatant misinformation, and probably should have
> drawn a procedural penalty in addition to the adjusted score.
>
be as weak as this. If there is no agreement, there is no
misinformation.
I think the point is that it was simply assumed that the pair had
under-informed. You have an overseas pair (presumably) playing in an
ACBL event. How are you ever going to establish a precedent?
To me, this incident is about whether one should assume positive
intent. Sure, the pair who missed the game were "non-offending". But
that doesn't mean that the other pair was "offending".
Peter.
New York, NY.
nige1
> Consider this ruling in a women's national
> S:Txxx H- D:xxx C:Qxxxxx
> P (P) 1H (P)
> 2C (P) 3C AP
> Partner makes 3C quite easily. LHO, who asked
> about the 2C and was told that it is natural,
> calls the director and complains that she
> didn't know it could be this weak. She held
> The score is changed to 4S making 5. Partner
> had a 2524, 9 count. And RHO had an 18 count!
> At the other table your teammates play 6H
> down two on the 5-0 trump break. Lose 13.
> Is this the gladiator sport of bridge
> where you fight to make the best result
> with your cards or is it a game that is
> wrapped tight in regulations so that every
> move must be selected from a sanitized list
> of options? I wouldn't be so depressed
> about this if it was isolated to the ACBL
> but I understand that the French inspired
> WBF is moving in the same direction.
> Their intentions may be good but I think
> that have completely missed the point.
[nige1]
If the director judges that your agreements
include responding 2C on a 2-count then his
ruling seems reasonable.
Such an agreement is sufficiently unusual to
be alertable. If partner is asked about it,
then "natural" may be the truth but it is
certainly not the whole truth.
Opponents may have been gullible but, arguably,
with a more complete explanation, they would have
bid differently and a more successful outcome was
likely.
To me, it seems wrong to deny redress based
on what harassed victims do *after* an infraction,
Here, anyway, opponents see to be in the clear.
The director seems to have felt that although
the opponents were timid, only in hindsight could
their passes be judged wild or gambling.
Even if opponents were judged to have damaged
themselves, however, the director may impose
a procedural penalty on you for misinformation.
I campaign for laws that are clearer, simpler and
much easier for players to understand; and
that includes simplified disclosure laws; but in
this case, my sympathies are with the opponents.
raija d
"nige1" <nigel....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1145250934.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I agree about simple laws. However, nowhere was it mentioned that it was
their agreement to respond with such a weak hand and thus I don't see (by
the facts presented) that disclosure was lacking. I think the fact that
opener raised is clear evidence that he also thought responder had more
values; if their *agreement* had been to respond with such a weak hand, I
would think opener would pass 2C.
>
anon
wrote:
>I agree about simple laws. However, nowhere was it mentioned that it was
>their agreement to respond with such a weak hand and thus I don't see (by
>the facts presented) that disclosure was lacking.
Agreed. However, one must assume that the director determined that
there was an agreement and that therefore the disclosure was lacking.
> I think the fact that
>opener raised is clear evidence that he also thought responder had more
>values; if their *agreement* had been to respond with such a weak hand, I
>would think opener would pass 2C.
I don't see where your conclusion comes from. It is perfectly
reasonable to assume that opener raises as if the 2c bid is "normal"
and, if not, it merely creates a additional competitive bid that the
opps must deal with.
danny...@aol.com
have little enough that game is cold for the opponents. She also knows
that LHO figures to be stronger, why give them an easier balance?
Ivan Popivanov
situation which happened some time ago at a national event, where a
pair tried to bring up undisclosed agreements, and advise me please
where things went wrong.
A player (white vs red) passed, then his partner made a take-out double
of their second seat opening. The take-out was alerted, and when asked,
explained that very rarely the doubler can have much less than a normal
take-out - good distribution with about 5-6 HCP.
The facts - this pair has been playing a lot together, and the alerter
has seen the other intervening on 5-8 HCP with good shape. Again this
has happened very rarely, about 2-3 times over 500 boards for example,
however, he has in mind to not hang partner in this situation.
The director didn't change the result (at the end), but brought the two
guys to the recorder of the tournament - looks like there was a strong
suspicion that this pair was cheating, because they had an implicit
"agreement", etc. Don't want to go through all details but the
situation was very unpleasent for that pair.
In any case, if this is what happens to you when you try to share
undisclosed stuff, I really don't see what else could be done to
improve partnership "disclosure".
Regards,
Ivan
ewleo...@hotmail.com
I have two issues:
First, in your mind, you were playing 1D to show five hearts yet you
didn't feel you had to inform your opponents before the round started
with your highly unusual methods. I think you are obligated if not
required to inform your opponents before the round begins. If you had
informed all your opponents before the round started, you surely would
not have been mistaken as to what bidding system you were playing well
into the session as your partner would have corrected you.
Second, the damage is hard to assess. After the 1H overcall, there was
no question we were not competing and your side was going to buy the
contract the only question was where. At this point, your side could
have waited until the end of the auction to protect us. I think there
was a greater risk that your side would get to a silly contract if
there had been no extraneous information when your side was bidding on
two different bidding systems. But once say both of you on your side
realized you were bidding with two different systems in the middle of
the auction there was no question that your chances of getting into a
bidding mishap has been greatly diminished as now you can be extra
careful. The later alert and correction in mid-auction clearly helped
your side far more than it help us.
Eric Leong
ewleo...@hotmail.com
richard...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ewleo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I am curious whether you feel you give sufficient disclosure to your
> > opponents at ACBL National events about your unique unusual bidding
> > metholds before the round begins for just two boards which are not
> > going to be ever encounted again.
>
> MOSCITO is hardly unique or unusual. I readily admit that you might
> not play against very often because you live in a rather sheltered part
> of the world. However, please don't think that your ignorance about a
> fairly well known family of bidding systems is at relevant to the
> discussion at hand.
>
I have not played against any pair using MOSCITO.
But I have not argued that MOSCITO should not be allowed.
If the ACBL allows a pair to use say highly unusual biddging method
against you for two boards in an imp pairs which you will probably
won't encounter in the next 100 sessions of pair events at the
Nationals then so be it.
But one would think one is obligated to be alerted at the start of the
round so certain defenses can be discussed.
> I have no first hand knowledge about the events in question. However,
> from the sounds of things, Paul provided misinformation during a match.
> This certainly isn't the sort of thing that one hopes to see happen
> during a bridge game, particularly an important one. With this said
> and done, if you look at the case books for the ACBL Nationals they are
> LITTERED with with these types of cases. There are enormous numbers of
> examples where players make elementary mistakes regarding their NT
> openings, defensive methods, yada yada yada.
>
> The only thing at all special about this incident is that you seem to
> have a bug up your ass about the specific definition of the 1D opening.
> (You seem aggrieved enough that you've posted about this in one thread
> and now are pissing and moaning about it in a completely unrelated
> disucssion)
>
> Personally, I couldn't care less if the 1D opening showed Hearts or
> Spades or a 0+ Diamonds (denies a 5+ card major). You received
> misinformation. Presumably, you received some protection from the
> Directors. If you have a specific issue regarding the ruling, please
> let us know. If not, drop the subject.
I think you have a very serious reading problem. Where did I say I
objected to 1D showing five hearts? Where did I say I received
misinformation? I did mention I had an issue of disclosure and its
timing which you are oblivious of.
Eric Leong
richard...@hotmail.com
> didn't feel you had to inform your opponents before the round started
> with your highly unusual methods. I think you are obligated if not
> required to inform your opponents before the round begins. If you had
> informed all your opponents before the round started, you surely would
> not have been mistaken as to what bidding system you were playing well
> into the session as your partner would have corrected you.
Silly question: How far into the session did the incident in question
happen?
>From the sounds of things, it happened towards the middle of the
session given your great concern for all the other pairs that should
have been informed regarding the pair's methods...
MOSCITO and "Strong Club + 5 card majors" are very different
systems. I find it inconceivable that partnership could play more that
a handful of boards without having this issue crop up The two systems
are radically different with respect to both opening and response
structures. I suppose that its possible to get dealt nothing but 2C
openings during the first half of an event. However, from my
perspective I would think that a momentary lapse is a hell of a lot
more likely that a sustained misunderstanding.
Micha Keijzers
> "Paul Marston" <p...@grandslam.com.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:pfJ%f.6217$vy1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>Consider this ruling in a women's national event in Dallas...
>>You hold
>>10xxx, -, xxx, Qxxxxx
>>You pass as does LHO. Partner opens a limited 1H and you respond 2C.
>>LHO, who asked about the 2C and was told that it is natural, calls the
>>held KQxxx, Axxx, Jx, Jx.
>>The score is changed to 4S making 5.
>>Partner had a 2524, 9 count. And RHO had an 18 count!
>>At the other table your teammates play 6H down two on the 5-0 trump break.
>>Lose 13.
>>Is this the gladiator sport of bridge where you fight to make the best
>>result with your cards or is it a game that is wrapped tight in
>>regulations so that every move must be selected from a sanitized list of
>>options?
>>I wouldn't be so depressed about this if it was isolated to the ACBL but I
>>understand that the French inspired WBF is moving in the same direction.
>>Their intentions may be good but I think that have completely missed the
>>point.
>
>
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>
> This story makes me sad also. And the ruling is ridiculous, anyone who
> cannot enter the auction on a combined 29 count does not deserve a plus
> score.
Well, they deserve a plus score if they manage to beat the contract...
But otherwise, sad indeed this story.
>
> Gerben
Cheers, Micha
Nijmegen, Netherlands
Peter Clinch
Otis Bricker wrote:
>
> I would like to point out that it was RHO who held the 18 count and her
> chance to bid was BEFORE the 'strength' showing 2C. Also, if the other
> distributions described are correct, RHO would have held 2461 shape making
> an overcall reasonably straight forward.
>
> So it is not that out of line to suggest that some part of the result was
> the opponents fault.
>
There is also the small matter that LHO had a hand that looks very much
like an opening bid. She decided to pass and wait, and is still
waiting.
Peter.
New York, NY.
Otis Bricker
news:1145363902.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Well, while it does look LIKE an opening hand, I leave it to others to
decide if it IS an opening hand. The unsupported Js would tip it against
for me but others are much more aggressive than I. Make it KQJxx AJxx xx xx
and I would open.
I think that most would agree that it is a borderline hand unless playing a
light-opening system.
Otis
Bruce McIntyre
> Consider this ruling in a women's national event in Dallas...
> You hold
> 10xxx, -, xxx, Qxxxxx
> You pass as does LHO. Partner opens a limited 1H and you respond 2C. Partner
> raises to 3C and everyone passes. She makes quite easily.
> LHO, who asked about the 2C and was told that it is natural, calls the
> director and complains that she didn't know it could be this weak. She held
> KQxxx, Axxx, Jx, Jx.
> The score is changed to 4S making 5.
> Partner had a 2524, 9 count. And RHO had an 18 count!
> At the other table your teammates play 6H down two on the 5-0 trump break.
> Lose 13.
> Is this the gladiator sport of bridge where you fight to make the best
> result with your cards or is it a game that is wrapped tight in regulations
> so that every move must be selected from a sanitized list of options?
> I wouldn't be so depressed about this if it was isolated to the ACBL but I
> understand that the French inspired WBF is moving in the same direction.
> Their intentions may be good but I think that have completely missed the
> point.
> paul marston
>
>
I'm sorry, I do not see the problem here.
Your point appears to be that the ACBL is going to hell because there was a
suspect ruling in Dallas. From the way the post is worded, the side ruled
against appears to have done nothing to prevent this from happening except roll
their eyes.
Did they appeal?
Did they explain what 2C promised and point out that the actual 2C call was a
psyche?
Was "natural" enough of an explanation for the 2C call?
Has the 2C bidder pulled this stunt before, creating an implicit agreement that
was withheld from the opponents?
What was the Director's reason for changing the score?
Did the side ruled against even ask for one?
How on earth is what happened at the other table even possibly relevant?
It's still the gladiator sport you describe. Wrapping it tight in regulations
like the principle of full disclosure doesn't "sanitize" anything. Fight to
make the best result with your cards, but do it under the rules.
If the 2C psyche was an on-the-spot ad lib that had never been discussed or used
in this partnership before, then the side ruled against is innocent. But being
innocent and expecting the correct ruling in a fishy situation are two different
things. One needs to give the TD one's best argument and appeal if you disagree
with the ruling.
Moaning to a newsgroup later isn't going to do much to solve a problem. I've
seen and heard enough of these types of stories to know that in the vast
majority of cases, the TD on the scene did the right thing and what we get in
the grapevine is a one-sided account.
--
.-------------------------.--------------------------------.
| Bruce McIntyre | email: oo...@shaw.ca |
| 9541 Erickson Dr, #1103 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" |
| Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor -- www.matchpointer.com |
| V3J 7N8 604-438-9735 | (ACBL Unit 430 Web Site) |
}-------------------------ˆ--------------------------------{
| Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training |
}----------------------------------------------------------{
| http://www.unit430.com/imps/IMPhome.htm |
| (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) |
}----------------------------------------------------------{
| www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com |
| (Projects I'll be working on in 2006) |
`----------------------------------------------------------´
Peter Clinch
Bruce McIntyre wrote:
>
> | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training |
OK, that was the wind. When should we expect the synthesis?
Paul Marston
"Bruce McIntyre" <ac.wahs@agoo> wrote in message
news:nje1g.37913$WI1.33575@pd7tw2no...
When a pair makes natural calls to reach a contract which they duly make
sounds like good bridge to me. They didn't misdescribe any calls. When asked
about the 2C she said it is clubs. If the questioner thought the point count
was important she should have asked about the point count.
Even if she asked about the point count and was told 0-11 HCP, it would not
have made it any easier for her to call. To come into this potentially
misfit auction at the 2 level opposite a passed partner would not be the
action of any decent player.
The director didn't consider this because he was busy thinking about what a
2C response should show in his memory of Goren's Bridge Complete. Once he
got snagged on that, he didn't even think about whether passing with an
attractive 18 HCP might have caused the problem. It is this attitude by the
ACBL to try and extract system from the bridge equation that bothers me.
If the ACBL ran bridge in Culbertson's day they would have put him out of
business. Bridge in its heyday was a war over bidding system.
paul
Jyrki Lahtonen
>
>
> When a pair makes natural calls to reach a contract which they duly make
> sounds like good bridge to me. They didn't misdescribe any calls. When asked
> about the 2C she said it is clubs. If the questioner thought the point count
> was important she should have asked about the point count.
In your first post you said that her reply to the query of the meaning
of 2C was "natural". Now you say that the reply was "clubs". Which was
it? The way I look at it, there is a huge distinction between the two
replies. And you should know it, too.
Cheers,
Jyrki
danny...@aol.com
hand. Two, tell us whether this went to a committee, or whether the
'offending' side merely took the directors ruling, then complained
about it.
Danny
pumpk...@hotmail.com
Paul Marston wrote:
>
(snip)
> >
>
> When a pair makes natural calls to reach a contract which they duly make
> sounds like good bridge to me. They didn't misdescribe any calls. When asked
> about the 2C she said it is clubs. If the questioner thought the point count
> was important she should have asked about the point count.
I think you have this backwards. Since the 2c bidder was familiar with
the aspects of the questioned bid that were jurisdictionally-unusual
(i.e. a point-count range that was *significantly* greater than that
which is nearly universally played in the jurisdiction hosting the
tournament), he had the obligation to make full disclosure. Putting the
obligation on the questioner is unreasonable because she has no idea
which particular variation from the norm she should be asking about.
Under your vision of things the questioner would have to ask a litany
of questions in order to make sure she had a correct understanding of
the various parameters of the bid.
With respect, in addition to being singularly inefficient, this vision
significantly departs from the general principles of fairness and
reasonableness that underlie the concept of proper disclosure.
> Even if she asked about the point count and was told 0-11 HCP, it would not
> have made it any easier for her to call. To come into this potentially
> misfit auction at the 2 level opposite a passed partner would not be the
> action of any decent player.
This is an entirely separate issue. It is also unseemly for the side
that has failed to properly disclose its methods to then assert that
even if they had done right by the opposing side the latter would not
have been able to cope.
> The director didn't consider this because he was busy thinking about what a
> 2C response should show in his memory of Goren's Bridge Complete. Once he
> got snagged on that, he didn't even think about whether passing with an
> attractive 18 HCP might have caused the problem.
Your point about RHO's actions is well-taken.
> It is this attitude by the
> ACBL to try and extract system from the bridge equation that bothers me.
> If the ACBL ran bridge in Culbertson's day they would have put him out of
> business. Bridge in its heyday was a war over bidding system.
> paul
It's true that the ACBL is suffering from myopia when it comes to
acceptance of different systems. However, it seems that you share this
affliction when it comes to the issue of proper disclosure.
Cheers.
Nick
ted
Enlighten me! They look like opposite sides of the same coin to me!
John R. Mayne
[snip]
> >
> > Moaning to a newsgroup later isn't going to do much to solve a problem.
> > I've seen and heard enough of these types of stories to know that in the
> > vast majority of cases, the TD on the scene did the right thing and what
> > we get in the grapevine is a one-sided account.
> >
>
> When a pair makes natural calls to reach a contract which they duly make
> sounds like good bridge to me. They didn't misdescribe any calls. When asked
> about the 2C she said it is clubs. If the questioner thought the point count
> was important she should have asked about the point count.
Bollocks. My tactical major suit raises system (described elsewhere)
allows for a 2H raise of a 4-card 8-12 1H opening on AQ4 K5 A52 J9542.
2H is to play. What, you didn't expect this hand? You should have
asked. 432 43 8432 9432 is another 2H bid. Why are you acting
surprised? What's wrong with you? If you wanted to know how many hearts
I had, or how much strength, you should have asked. "Natural," is an
entirely accurate description.
Asking should get a response, not a hide.
> Even if she asked about the point count and was told 0-11 HCP, it would not
> have made it any easier for her to call. To come into this potentially
> misfit auction at the 2 level opposite a passed partner would not be the
> action of any decent player.
I haven't seen the hands, so that's hard for me to accept, especially
with your rather slanted presentation.
> The director didn't consider this because he was busy thinking about what a
> 2C response should show in his memory of Goren's Bridge Complete.
Really? I've been awfully harsh over the years on some of the
directing, but I seriously doubt this.
Once he
> got snagged on that, he didn't even think about whether passing with an
> attractive 18 HCP might have caused the problem.
Publish the full hand.
It is this attitude by the
> ACBL to try and extract system from the bridge equation that bothers me.
> If the ACBL ran bridge in Culbertson's day they would have put him out of
> business. Bridge in its heyday was a war over bidding system.
> paul
This is just false. The directors were absolutely reasonable with me on
my tactical raise system (though, depressingly, the change in the rules
for responses to an ambiguously strong club killed it at the general
chart level.) I love fun systems. But the advantage shouldn't come from
a lack of disclosure.
Some juniors I knew a while back played a strong diamond system with
all sorts of weird gadgetry; it was fun to play against them because
they always explained their bids fully, with some of the more common
negative inferences offered up without grief. If we had more of that,
maybe we'd have more system tolerance. All we're asking for is
disclosure.
My partners disclose, or they're not my partners.
--JRM
raija d
"Jyrki Lahtonen" <laht...@utu.fi> wrote in message
news:e253nq$20il$1...@bowmore.utu.fi...
Huh? To me Natural is the same as Clubs (when the bid was clubs)
What distinction is there in your opinion and why?
raija d
"Paul Marston" <p...@grandslam.com.au> wrote in message
news:l9o1g.10103$vy1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> They didn't misdescribe any calls. When asked
> about the 2C she said it is clubs. If the questioner thought the point
> count was important she should have asked about the point count.
That is incorrect. In ACBL regulation requires that any question or any sort
of indication the opponent wants to know about a call (even if question is
not the *right sort of question*) requires a full and complete description
of the call. If your agreement is "clubs and 0-11HCP" , you need to
explain all of it . Alert would be appropriate, zero points with responder
is not the expected strength.
I am changing my view on the "sadness" aspect of the story. I guess I did
not understand from the OP that 2C with 2HCP was systemic, not a tactical
bid with less HCP than expected.
richard...@hotmail.com
> That is incorrect. In ACBL regulation requires that any question or any sort
> of indication the opponent wants to know about a call (even if question is
> not the *right sort of question*) requires a full and complete description
> of the call. If your agreement is "clubs and 0-11HCP" , you need to
> explain all of it . Alert would be appropriate, zero points with responder
> is not the expected strength.
The play who responded 2C is a passed hand playing a light opening
system.
This player failed to open 2C or 3C earlier in the auction.
Just how strong do you expect 2C to be?
You can claim that the non-offending side was ignorant about this,
however, I refer once again to the following quote from the ACBL.
"Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems
that they may encounter at the bridge table." I don't consider a
weak/natural 2C response unexpected.
>From my perspective, any analysis of this ruling needs to be decomposed
into two distinct elements.
Item 1: Did the offending side provide adequate disclosure? If I get
asked about a 2C response to a third seat opening I normally assume
that the pair in question wants to know whether or not I am playing
Drury. I might very well provide a very simple answer like clubs or
natural.
Item 2: Was the non-offending side damaged by the poor disclosure?
This is very hard to address without looking at the hands in question.
>From my perpsective, if you're playing methods that don't allow your
side to enter the auction with a combined 29 count you'll have a hard
time claiming damaging...
The appeals process is non an equal opportunity system for the
incompetent.
Peter Clinch
Paul Marston wrote:
>
> When a pair makes natural calls to reach a contract which they duly make
> sounds like good bridge to me. They didn't misdescribe any calls. When asked
> about the 2C she said it is clubs. If the questioner thought the point count
> was important she should have asked about the point count.
To me, it depends what the exchange actually was.
If the questioner asked "is 2C natural or artificial?", then the answer
"it's clubs" seems ok to me.
If the question were broader (such as "what's 2C"?), and the respondent
is aware that the range covers 0-11, then it should be disclosed rather
than withheld.
I don't think this is an ACBL issue. I remember an English (female)
international explaining how she and her partner rehearsed the precise
wording they would use to disclose meanings of common opening and
conventional bids, if asked. That was in a WBF context.
Like some others, my sympathies are wavering now, though I still
believe that some of the "off with her head" reactions are too extreme.
Peter.
New York, NY.
ewleo...@hotmail.com
I think if the 2C bid was announced as possibly showing a zero count
that the opponents might have found a way to come in subsequently on
the auction. And had the 2C had been announced as possibly showing a
zero count and your side bid to 3C you would get to keep your good
result. In the ACBL, there are lesser type situations that required an
alert. For example, if you play a weak jump shift that is alerted. If
you play a semi-forcing notrump showing 6-12 that has to be alerted. So
the 2C bid here is no different of a situation especially if you are
using highly unusual bidding methods. Clearly, the less than full
disclosure to the opponents of the 2C bid suggests that one wanted to
leave an impression in the opponents mind that they had at best half
the hcp in the deck. So the story to me is not a sad story but a
triumph of justice.
Eric Leong
Bruce McIntyre
> When a pair makes natural calls to reach a contract which they duly make
> sounds like good bridge to me. They didn't misdescribe any calls. When asked
> about the 2C she said it is clubs. If the questioner thought the point count
> was important she should have asked about the point count.
Wrong. The ACBL alert procedure (and every interpretation of 'full disclosure')
says:
--When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement.
Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient.
--The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.
--Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only
indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given
automatically.
All this is true whether or not a bid is alertable.
"They didn't misdescribe any calls" sounds synonymous with Clinton's "that
depends what the definition of 'is' is."
> Even if she asked about the point count and was told 0-11 HCP, it would not
> have made it any easier for her to call. To come into this potentially
> misfit auction at the 2 level opposite a passed partner would not be the
> action of any decent player.
But you still won't post the deal and let us judge for ourselves what BOTH
defenders might have done, knowing that 2C could be significantly weaker than
most play.
> The director didn't consider this because he was busy thinking about what a
> 2C response should show in his memory of Goren's Bridge Complete. Once he
> got snagged on that, he didn't even think about whether passing with an
> attractive 18 HCP might have caused the problem. It is this attitude by the
> ACBL to try and extract system from the bridge equation that bothers me.
> If the ACBL ran bridge in Culbertson's day they would have put him out of
> business. Bridge in its heyday was a war over bidding system.
Post the deal. Let us see this "attractive 18 count" that you insist should
never be passed. Even if it is a hand that might have bid over 1H, so what? If
you failed to disclose properly, which seems to me to be the case here, you
should expect an adjustment to your score at least.
danny...@aol.com
system.
This player failed to open 2C or 3C earlier in the auction.
Just how strong do you expect 2C to be? "
First of all, there was no mention of the opponents playing a light
opening system.
Second, there are plenty of 10, even 11 counts that would pass and then
bid 2 clubs.
How is this:
Axx
Q
Txxx
AJxxx.
Even playing strong club, this looks like an easy pass. Do I expect 11
points? Of course not. But I expect a constructive hand as a minimum.
Danny
richard...@hotmail.com
> that the opponents might have found a way to come in subsequently on
> the auction. And had the 2C had been announced as possibly showing a
> zero count and your side bid to 3C you would get to keep your good
> result. In the ACBL, there are lesser type situations that required an
> alert. For example, if you play a weak jump shift that is alerted. If
> you play a semi-forcing notrump showing 6-12 that has to be alerted. So
> the 2C bid here is no different of a situation especially if you are
> using highly unusual bidding methods. Clearly, the less than full
> disclosure to the opponents of the 2C bid suggests that one wanted to
> leave an impression in the opponents mind that they had at best half
> the hcp in the deck. So the story to me is not a sad story but a
> triumph of justice.
I repeat the same question that I raised to Raija...
The player making the 2C advance is playing some random strong club /
light opening system. This player passed in 1st seat, denying the
ability to make either a 2C or 3C opening.... Just how strong do you
expect the 2C advancer to be?
Equally significant, lets assume that you did receive perfect
disclosure and was told that the 2C advance shows 5+ Clubs and 0-7 HCP
(or whatever the correct agreement was)? What percentage of the time
will advancer hold a zero count or even a 0-3 count? Can you really
claim that this pair would change their bidding methods based on a hand
type thats two or three sigmas out on the tail end of the distribution?
Even if you accept that the offending side should have provided more
complete disclosure, the non-offending side seems to have failed to
play bridge.
I can (potentially) see that the offending side deserves a proceedural
penalty for incomplete disclosure. However, there is no way that the
non-offending side deserves protection.
richard...@hotmail.com
> opening system.
>
> Second, there are plenty of 10, even 11 counts that would pass and then
> bid 2 clubs.
>
> How is this:
>
> Axx
> Q
> Txxx
> AJxxx.
>
> Even playing strong club, this looks like an easy pass. Do I expect 11
> points? Of course not. But I expect a constructive hand as a minimum.
Playing Precision, I'd open that 1D all the live long day...
ewleo...@hotmail.com
If you don't give the non-offending side a sporting chance with full
disclosure you don't get your good result. Further, since this was an
imp match so the non-offending side is going to get some protection.
The question becomes what is an appropriate procedural penalty?
Eric Leong
raija d
<richard...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145480982....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I would demand protection if responder in the given auction can systemically
have zero HCP and I was not informed of that fact. Nobody has yet seen the
18HCP hand which chose to pass over a third seat opener, but regardless how
silly it was to pass with that hand, the lacking disclosure surely
contributed to the problem later. When a question is asked, a full and
complete answer must be given; here, a crucial feature (possibility of zero
points in the responding hand) was kept hidden and whatever adverse ruling
that pair gets for failing to disclose, is fair IMO.
anon
<double...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Like some others, my sympathies are wavering now, though I still
>believe that some of the "off with her head" reactions are too extreme.
Wavering? Paul as has much as admitted that he knowingly withheld
information about the point count. Why? Well, he has explained that,
too. He wants to go back to the days when disclosure of the exact
meaning of bids was post-mortem. In other words, he has admitted to
being a bully.
The ACBL rules bear on this unfortunate, but all too common,
circumstance with two separate, and previously mentioned, concepts:
1) Even if the question isn't precise, interpret the question as
appropriate in order to ensure full disclosure. He woefully failed
this criteria. But, remember, not only did he do so, he did so
knowingly. He is lucky that in addition to the 13 imps, he didn't get
a PP. A large PP. Why? Because an experienced and knowledgable
player such as himself should be held to a critically high standard,
IMO. Or, at least, held to the precise standard and given very little
lattitude when it comes to this sort of bullying.
2) People are supposed to have knowledge of systems. I don't see
where this has any bearing on this circumstance. None. Just because
you know that a system is generally natural, or that responses tend to
be canape, or some such, doesn't mean anything other than you were
expecting the answer to your question to be truthful. His wasn't.
Knowingly.
Paul, the bridge world has indeed passed you by. No longer is it
considered appropriate to demand that opponents pretend to be dentists
in order to extract information from you. Pulling teeth has no place
in this game any more.
Admit it. You tried to gain the upper hand via unscruplous tactics
and were called to the carpet for it. And to show your audacious
side, you still think you were right.
Jim
richard...@hotmail.com
> I would demand protection if responder in the given auction can systemically
> have zero HCP and I was not informed of that fact. Nobody has yet seen the
> 18HCP hand which chose to pass over a third seat opener, but regardless how
> silly it was to pass with that hand, the lacking disclosure surely
> contributed to the problem later. When a question is asked, a full and
> complete answer must be given; here, a crucial feature (possibility of zero
> points in the responding hand) was kept hidden and whatever adverse ruling
> that pair gets for failing to disclose, is fair IMO.
For kicks and giggles I just ran a very simple simulation.
I constrained North's hand to have between 10 and 15 HCP
I constrained South's hand to have between 0-9 HCP
Here's a frequency distribution with South's expected HCP holding
0 HCP = 1%
1 HCP = 2%
2 HCP = 3%
3 HCP = 5%
4 HCP = 9%
5 HCP = 11%
6 HCP = 14%
7 HCP = 17%
8 HCP = 19%
9 HCP = 19%
As I noted before, the super-weak hand types are very far out on the
tail of the distribution. No one in their right mind is going to make
any kind of significant changes to their methods based on the fact that
the minimum strength for an advance is a zero count rather than a three
count or even a 5 count.
The the damage was subsequent to the infraction, but it can't be
consider consequent.
Charles Brenner
anon wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2006 10:43:52 -0700, "Peter Clinch"
> <double...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Like some others, my sympathies are wavering now, though I still
> >believe that some of the "off with her head" reactions are too extreme.
>
> Wavering? Paul as has much as admitted that he knowingly withheld
> information about the point count. Why? Well, he has explained that,
> too. He wants to go back to the days when disclosure of the exact
> meaning of bids was post-mortem. In other words, he has admitted to
> being a bully.
The hand is from a women's event. I think Marsten is just expressing
an opinion, not defending an action of his own.
Charles
richard...@hotmail.com
> >believe that some of the "off with her head" reactions are too extreme.
>
> Wavering? Paul as has much as admitted that he knowingly withheld
> information about the point count. Why? Well, he has explained that,
> too. He wants to go back to the days when disclosure of the exact
> meaning of bids was post-mortem. In other words, he has admitted to
> being a bully.
......
> Admit it. You tried to gain the upper hand via unscruplous tactics
> and were called to the carpet for it. And to show your audacious
> side, you still think you were right.
>
> Jim
Jim, did you bother to read the original posting before launching your
little broadside?
I'll quote the very first sentence:
"Consider this ruling in a women's national event in Dallas... "
Last I knew, Paul wasn't eligible to compete in the Women's events in
Dallas.
I don't see how HE could have knowingly withheld information about the
point count or how HE could have acted as a bully or employed
unscrupulous tactics.
>From the sounds of things, Paul is reporting on a ruling that he
disagreed with. I think that you might owe him an apology for
slandering his motives like this.
BTW, combining anonymous posting with this type of character
assassination shows real class...
Paul Marston
<danny...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1145448399.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
original posting).
North x, J109xx, KQ9, K10xx
West KQxxx, Axxx, J10, Jx
East AJx, KQxx, Axxxx, A
South 10xxx, -, xxx, Qxxxxx
This is the quote about the exchange from the email.
"My LHO (we were playing with screens) who has played against us in major
competition many times asked me about the meaning of 2C. I was under the
impression she wanted to know whether it was artificial (like Drury) or not
and replied it was a natural bid."
I am not aware of any appeal being lodged.
This story was mentioned to me in passing in an email. There was no sense of
angst from the person who told the story - just dismay that this can happen.
I share that view and I am truly surprised to see that many on this group do
not. Playing a strong club I too would take the risk of responding 2C. There
is a real risk because it is likely that the opponent's eerie silence is
because RHO is strong hand with hearts. If that is the case and if we have a
misfit we will surely get pinged. I would also answer the question as she
did. I consider myself highly ethical. Behind screens I write down the
meaning of all bids without being asked including the forcing status: F1,
NF, Inv, GF, whatever. I only write down point count in the case of natural
notrump bids because that is the only time we closely consider point count.
Sometimes opponents insist on a point count. For example, 1S (me, I write
4+S, >15 HCP) 2C (they) 2H (partner). I write 5+H F1. They say how many
points. I shrug my shoulders. I don't know and I don't care. Partner has
sufficient values to think we should be in the bidding. Sometimes I come
across Neanderthals who only speak HCP. If they really insist I will say 8+
HCP to shut them up but that is not accurate. F1 is accurate.
In the case of the 2C I would write nothing because it is natural (i.e.
clubs!) and obviously non forcing. And when they come along and give me -650
I say nothing. I shake my head and think how sad it is what these people are
doing to this game. I don't bother to appeal because I have better things to
do with my time. The point of making this post is not to complain about a
ruling. What I care about is the mess the ACBL is making of the game.
paul
ewleo...@hotmail.com
Why is it so difficult for you to confess to your opponents that the 2C
bid could be made on ZERO hcp?
> In the case of the 2C I would write nothing because it is natural (i.e.
> clubs!) and obviously non forcing. And when they come along and give me -650
> I say nothing. I shake my head and think how sad it is what these people are
> doing to this game. I don't bother to appeal because I have better things to
> do with my time. The point of making this post is not to complain about a
> ruling. What I care about is the mess the ACBL is making of the game.
Sorry, I think the game of bridge would really be sadder if your
version of non-disclosure were to prevail.Also, I don't think the ACBL
is hardly alone on this.
Eric Leong
>
> paul
Adam Beneschan
> > >Like some others, my sympathies are wavering now, though I still
> > >believe that some of the "off with her head" reactions are too extreme.
> >
> > Wavering? Paul as has much as admitted that he knowingly withheld
> "Consider this ruling in a women's national event in Dallas... "
>
> Last I knew, Paul wasn't eligible to compete in the Women's events in
> Dallas.
Unless, of course, there's other information that he's withholding
.......
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
-- Adam
henry...@yahoo.com
I haven't gotten into this discussion, in part because feeling seem to
be running high, but I will make this observation:
IF the hand that could have / should have gotten into the auction is in
fact the 4th seat, THEN her decision NOT to enter the auction occured
BEFORE the alleged infraction took place. That is, the person who
might have been given misinformation would have been the hand in 2nd
seat.
So from my perspective, the only possible way to claim damage is to
make the claim that the hand that already passed in 2nd seat would have
made an overcall of a bid that could have been weak had he been
informed correctly.
Since 4th hand appears already to have made the decision NOT to
overcall the 1H opening bid, I fail to see how 4th hand can claim
damage due to an inadequate explanation of the 2C response.
This of course in no way should be construed as my assent to the notion
that 2C was inadequately explained. Since it appears that 2C wasn't
some form of Drury, and since natural 2/1 can be shaded by a passed
hand (perhaps not to this level, but is there anyone who wouldn't
respond 2C with Txxx; VOID; Kxx; QJTxxx to 1H as a passed hand opposite
a known limited opener?) it isn't immediately obvious to me that the 2C
bid was wrongly explained.
Finally, would we even be having this discussion if opener had Qxx;
AJT9xx; AKx; x and made a value showing rebid of 3H which was then
doubled and off 2 spades, a spade ruff, 3 hearts, 1 diamond, and 1 club
for down 4?
I think not.
At this point, I'd be willing to entertain a ruling whereby EW keep
their zero but NS are assessed some sort of procedural penalty if it
can be determined that they did not inform the opponents correctly.
But because the big hand apparently passed BEFORE the 2c response was
made, I'd have a very hard time agreeing that the misinformation
damaged EW.
Henrysun909
Ivan Popivanov
distributional hand (as the one in question), another possibility is a
director call and the director starting inquiring why this bid was
alerted, is that a "controlled" psych, etc. Just making another mess -
have been there, during a national - yes, and it sucks (see my previous
post if interested).
Note, I am not trying to say that the explanation was adequate, I am
only saying that to me the ruling was insane - there is no hedging or
reason to believe that NS have non-standard agreements. On the other
hand, East auction is sick.
IMO in this situation there is no right way to disclose information (at
least in ACBL land) - better stick it as a rare psych and don't alert.
Unfortunately it takes time for foreigners to learn that.
JMHO,
Ivan
danny...@aol.com
I say nothing. I shake my head and think how sad it is what these
people are
doing to this game. I don't bother to appeal because I have better
things to
do with my time.
I don't understand this attitude. If you feel the wrong ruling was
made, spend another 30 minutes of your time telling the committee why.
You(especially you, Paul) spend lots of time, and money to get to a
tournament what's another 30 minutes? The ACBL directors tend to rule
in favor of the 'nonoffenders',so if you feel they are wrong, appeal.
Also, the committee can take more time to do some fact finding,
especially regarding methods and tenedencies that the directors don't
always have the time to do.
To those who have said (in other parts of this thread) that the 4th
hand already passed before the 2 club call, consider that they
may(should) have backed in with a double of 3 clubs.
Danny
Otis Bricker
news:1145487159.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Women are allowed to enter men's events. Why not the reverse?
Otis Bricker
news:1145486537.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
I wonder about those numbers though I won't have a chance to do my own
for a few days. What shapes did you use and did you also constrain 2nd
seat to <12? I would expect that a pair playing this sort of agressive
style would open many of the 5hcp+ hands with 3C when there was a good 6+
card club suit.
--
Otis
Otis Bricker
news:4446c7de$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
> In the case of the 2C I would write nothing because it is natural
> (i.e. clubs!) and obviously non forcing. And when they come along and
> give me -650 I say nothing. I shake my head and think how sad it is
> what these people are doing to this game. I don't bother to appeal
> because I have better things to do with my time. The point of making
> this post is not to complain about a ruling. What I care about is the
> mess the ACBL is making of the game.
>
>
Frankly, I don't understand your attitude and think that attitude is a
LARGE part of why the ACBL makes it so hard for people to try new systems.
Is it that hard to understand that the VAST majority of players, in the US
at least if not the world, generally require some HCP to respond to an
opening bid? Your style may well be better but it is not common. The
unbelievably simple act of changing "natural" to "natural but does not
promise HC values" would have fixed everything but you would rather blame
others for not anticipating your reluctance to disclose.
It is not true of all 'odd' system players but my pet peeve is how hard it
often is to get complete answers from them. Once, the only answer I could
get from a pair playing Polish club on what the 3C bid in the sequence 1D-
(1H)-P-(2H)-3C showed was that it was natural. They would not tell me if
diamonds MIGHT be shorter, if they had diamonds at all or if the hand had a
'maximum'. This sort of thing happened over and over in a 64 board match.
We had to waste a lot of mental effort just figuring out what questions to
ask and still could not get complete information.
Otis
Jyrki Lahtonen
>>In your first post you said that her reply to the query of the meaning of
>>2C was "natural". Now you say that the reply was "clubs". Which was it?
>>The way I look at it, there is a huge distinction between the two
>>replies. And you should know it, too.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Jyrki
>
>
> Huh? To me Natural is the same as Clubs (when the bid was clubs)
> What distinction is there in your opinion and why?
>
Apparently I'm splitting hairs here. To me the reply "clubs" may
carry the undertone that the strength may still be undefined. IMHO
the description "natural" definitely also means that the strength is
(at least close to) what one expects from the 2/1 response in
well-known natural systems (SAYC, Acol, Goren).
I do think that it is against the spirit (may be also the letter)
of the laws to describe this 2C bid as "natural", if it is systemically
allowed to have as little as 2 HCP. Being a nit-picking mathematician
I would have some sympathy to the description "clubs" if all it promises
is a string of clubs (but no points). Even so, common sense and common
courtesy would tell me to use a description "clubs, could be ultra-weak"
instead. I would understand such a slip from a tired player (say due
to jet lag and not playing at his home club).
Too bad the OP didn't comment on whether the 2C bid was a psyche or
the systemic call from a passed hand.
Cheers,
Jyrki
Bruce McIntyre
> This is the complete deal (I didn't know all the hands at the time of the
> original posting).
>
> North x, J109xx, KQ9, K10xx
>
> West KQxxx, Axxx, J10, Jx
>
> East AJx, KQxx, Axxxx, A
>
> South 10xxx, -, xxx, Qxxxxx
>
> This is the quote about the exchange from the email.
>
> "My LHO (we were playing with screens) who has played against us in major
> competition many times asked me about the meaning of 2C. I was under the
> impression she wanted to know whether it was artificial (like Drury) or not
> and replied it was a natural bid."
>
> I am not aware of any appeal being lodged.
Thanks for posting these full details. I suspect by now someone would have
found the deal in the Daily Bulletins if there was an appeal.
> In the case of the 2C I would write nothing because it is natural (i.e.
> clubs!) and obviously non forcing. And when they come along and give me -650
> I say nothing. I shake my head and think how sad it is what these people are
> doing to this game. I don't bother to appeal because I have better things to
> do with my time. The point of making this post is not to complain about a
> ruling. What I care about is the mess the ACBL is making of the game.
I think N-S probably had a good chance to win on appeal. They could easily
argue any of the following:
--the raise to 3C shows that North took 2C as showing at least some values,
which is evidence that we are dealing with a tactical psyche here, not a
misexplanation of an agreement that includes possibly very weak hands
--even if we have such an agreement and the explanation of natural is deemed
insufficient, it is highly doubtful that West would find a call over 2C or East
over 3C
--players at this level should be expected to protect themselves: it is clear
enough that 2C is non-forcing and opposite a limited partner could be quite weak
I can see arguments both ways now that you have posted the complete details. I
imagine (because it has happened to me in ACBL events) that the manner in which
the ruling was delivered was fairly shoddy, and contributed to the frustration.
Too many ACBL TDs deliver such a ruling and say something like "we're
adjusting to -650 because we talked about it and the CTD figured that was the
right call" instead of something more reasonable like "the Laws say this, the
Alert regulations say this, and therefore we have decided to adjust the score on
this basis, but since it is a judgment call you may appeal if you wish." Such
rulings tend to favour the non-offending side, or, in this case, the side that
claims to be non-offending, whenever they are close. A decision one way or the
other must be made, and the general rule for TDs (whose first job is to keep the
game moving) is to favour the non-offenders in doubtful decisions, and let the
appeal committee look at it in greater detail. That is why you appeal--not
because you disagree with the ruling or the regulations or the TD who delivered
it or the organization behind the ruling--but because some decisions _are_
borderline and require a detailed look. Refusing to appeal is like staying home
on Election Day.
Anyhow, if you wish to complain about "the mess the ACBL is making to the game",
find several dozen more suspect rulings illustrating a theme and post them.
Assuming the worst from one is hardly scientific.
anon
<cbre...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
It matters not one whit. The substance of his post is that he would
have done the same and that he felt the same way as South. If he
hadn't, he wouldn't have posted.
So change the tenses ever so slightly so they read appropriately for
the context. The subject matter and the intended indictment are
completely valid.
And as you well know, there are many reasons for anonymity. Attacking
a post based on the perceived name of the individual is ridiculous in
a usenet setting and you very well know it. If you disagree with the
content, say so. If you want to ignore posts which appear to be
anonymous, do so. If you want me to dummy up a name just to play your
game, I won't take the bait.
Jim
anon
Inappropriately posted as a response to Charles, when intended as a
response to Richard.
Jim
richard...@hotmail.com
> And as you well know, there are many reasons for anonymity. Attacking
> a post based on the perceived name of the individual is ridiculous in
> a usenet setting and you very well know it. If you disagree with the
> content, say so. If you want to ignore posts which appear to be
> anonymous, do so. If you want me to dummy up a name just to play your
> game, I won't take the bait.
Jim,
I did address the contect of your posting. I noted fairly specifically
that if you are going to launch this type of personal attack, you
probably should take enough care to actually read the posts that you
are responding to.
As for your comments about anonymity: I readily agree that there are
lots of reasons for anonymity. I very much agree that there are many
people in the world who require this type of protection. In this day
and age a Chinese dissident would probably be a prototypical example.
However, we're discussing bridge here. What do you think is going to
happen if you post your real name (or even adopt a long lasting
pseudonym). Are the MOSCITO police going to show up at your house and
admister electric shocks to your balls until you recant?
For whatever reason you decided to launch a highly insulting personal
attack and did so in a quite ignorant manner. And to cap it all off,
your too chickenshit to use your real name...
richard...@hotmail.com
Given that 2nd seat decided to pass with an 18 count it didn't seem
right to constrain 2nd seat to <12 HCP.
Adam Beneschan
> Women are allowed to enter men's events. Why not the reverse?
I don't think there are any more Men's events---at least not in the
ACBL.
I've been playing long enough to remember this debate. And it's been
debated on r.g.b at least a couple times, as well as in other
publications.
When I first started playing, there were Men's and Women's events, and
when those events were held, players had to enter the event appropriate
for their own sex. Some women did not like this, because the level of
play in the women's events was (for whatever reason) seen as lower, and
some women felt deprived by not being able to play against the stronger
competition in the men's events. (This is not all that different from
the complaint of players who were relegated to flight C events because
of their masterpoint holding and were not allowed to play in higher
flights but would have preferred to play against stronger competition.
Eventually, lower limits on flights were all but dropped.) I don't
believe there were any men who felt deprived by not being able to play
in women's events.
The debate was whether to have any sex-segregated events at all; some
people felt this was unnecessary and discriminatory. Eventually,
though, the ACBL decided to hold Open and Women's events, but drop the
men's events. I don't know all the reasons that went into their
decision, but one of the rationales was that it was necessary to
continue to hold women's events because the Venice Cup was still
around. There may have been others---there may have been plenty of
women who still preferred to play in a women-only event---just
speculation, I really don't know.
Also, I'm more aware of what happened in the ACBL then elsewhere. But
I do think that the rest of the bridge-playing world (including the
WBF) was facing the same debate. However, I don't know exactly what
decisions they faced or made, except that obviously the Venice Cup
tournament is still being held.
-- Adam
anon
<richard...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>anon wrote:
>
>> And as you well know, there are many reasons for anonymity. Attacking
>> a post based on the perceived name of the individual is ridiculous in
>> a usenet setting and you very well know it. If you disagree with the
>> content, say so. If you want to ignore posts which appear to be
>> anonymous, do so. If you want me to dummy up a name just to play your
>> game, I won't take the bait.
>
>Jim,
>
>I did address the contect of your posting. I noted fairly specifically
>that if you are going to launch this type of personal attack, you
>probably should take enough care to actually read the posts that you
>are responding to.
Oh, I read it. The comment about a women's event struck me as a bit
of a farce. For all I know he was talking about an event that was
populated mostly by beings of inferior abilities to his own (that is,
he was taking a stab at all women bridge players). I just refused to
deal with the subversion. I addressed the issues raised and I
addressed them as if they were his personally, because the tone of his
post makes it clear that he would have done the same thing.
Get over it.
Are you actually saying that you support his attitude of
non-disclosure?
>As for your comments about anonymity: I readily agree that there are
>lots of reasons for anonymity. I very much agree that there are many
>people in the world who require this type of protection. In this day
>and age a Chinese dissident would probably be a prototypical example.
>However, we're discussing bridge here. What do you think is going to
>happen if you post your real name (or even adopt a long lasting
>pseudonym). Are the MOSCITO police going to show up at your house and
>admister electric shocks to your balls until you recant?
There are many other reasons. Go google the washingtonienne (not that
my postings are nearly as salacious, but the result might be the
same). Shame on you.
>For whatever reason you decided to launch a highly insulting personal
>attack and did so in a quite ignorant manner.
If the foo shits, wear it.
It isn't insulting to say one is a bully, if one is a bully, it is a
fact. It isn't ignorant to address the wheat and ignore the chaff.
But you are free to adopt your own definitions. I'm sure no amount of
logic will disuade you from it, in fact.
You are probably among the group that believe the lack of disclosure
is somehow forgiven by the lack of bidding by the opps. Wrong again.
>And to cap it all off,
>your too chickenshit to use your real name...
Guilty as charged (almost... I think if you google you might find it).
Hey, maybe I'm really that Lingfish fellow (Lingcod?) .....let's see,
where am I today? Some far away place with limited internet access
and having downed a number of "refreshments" I'm my normal,
incoherent, belligerent self. Or not.
Jim
raija d
"Jyrki Lahtonen" <laht...@utu.fi> wrote in message
news:e27ci8$2lqe$1...@bowmore.utu.fi...
AFAIK, in a later post it was disclosed as systemic, not a psych.
>
richard...@hotmail.com
> is somehow forgiven by the lack of bidding by the opps. Wrong again.
If you look at my posting in this thread, you'll see that I have been
very care to decompose this incident into two separate issues:
Issue 1: Did the offending side provide adequate disclosure.
My answer: Probably not. A proceedural penalty may be warrantly.
With this said and done, if you are going to start handing out
proceedural penalties for this sort thing your gonna be giving a hell
of a lot of proceedural penalties.
Issue 2: Was the damage to the non-offending side subsequent or
consequent to the infraction? I believe that that the non-offending
side's actions were sufficient to break the chain of consequence.
The lack of disclosure should not be forgiven; nor should the
non-offending side's ridiculous decision to pass.
richard...@hotmail.com
I made the following post to a couple different online bridge forums:
>Here is a hand that is generating considerable discussion on another forum.
>
>You hold
>
>S AJx
>H KQxx
>D Axxxx
>C A
>
>The opponents are playing strong club and 5 card majors.
>
>The auction starts
>
>(P) - P - (1H) - ???
>
>What call do you make?
If gotten roughly 40 responses. A grand total of 2 players chose to
pass with the hand in question. From my perspective, passing this hand
is far more unusual than the 2C advance that caused this whole
brouhaha.
Curious whether any of the champions of disclosure think that this pass
deserves an alert...
anon
<richard...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are probably among the group that believe the lack of disclosure
>> is somehow forgiven by the lack of bidding by the opps. Wrong again.
>
>If you look at my posting in this thread, you'll see that I have been
>very care to decompose this incident into two separate issues:
>
>Issue 1: Did the offending side provide adequate disclosure.
>
>My answer: Probably not. A proceedural penalty may be warrantly.
>With this said and done, if you are going to start handing out
>proceedural penalties for this sort thing your gonna be giving a hell
>of a lot of proceedural penalties.
I would probably not do so for the rank and file. However, I feel
quite strongly that a player of international reputation has a higher
duty to the game. Maybe the (theoretical) individual who played the
hand would get a warning. The OP would get a PP.
It is not without precedent that those who are supposedly less
familiar with the rules are given a bit of slack. The converse should
be true, as well.
>Issue 2: Was the damage to the non-offending side subsequent or
>consequent to the infraction? I believe that that the non-offending
>side's actions were sufficient to break the chain of consequence.
>
>The lack of disclosure should not be forgiven; nor should the
>non-offending side's ridiculous decision to pass.
I'm not so sure. I agree that the initial pass was a terribly,
terribly timid call. But I have some sympathy for a pass in fourth
position where the initial opener was in third. Partner is still
available to protect and if the bidding gets back to the person with
the 18 point hand, they are in a much better position to decide how to
compete. I'm not saying that many would opt for pass, just that I
don't find it incomprehensible.
So the onus falls on the second pass, not the first. Let's examine
the context in which that second pass was made: there was misleading
information. Forget about the fact that the question came from and
therefore the answer only went to the screenmate. The fact is that it
wasn't alerted and when the bidding got back to our timid initial
passer, SHE had reason to believe that something close to 10 points
were on her left and right. What does that leave partner with? Now the
final pass looks much more reasonable.
In other words, I don't think the pre-infraction pass spoils the
auction to the point where the post-infraction pass is rendered as an
equalizer to the misinformation.
Others may disagree, of course. I know you have presented statistical
evidence that the mere possibility of a super-weak hand shouldn't lead
to a modification of the subsequent bidding. I think that ignores the
reality of the situation. Whether the individual knows, or not, that
the super weak variant occurs less than 5% of the time, they will be
influenced, at that time, to potentially take an action that they
might not otherwise take. As a non-offending side, they are entitled
to that consideration.
In my opinion there is no quarter to be given those who attempt to win
by obfuscation and if they need to have their proverbial wrist slapped
a few times before they "get it", so be it.
Jim
anon
<richard...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now you are just being silly. Stipulated: the initial pass by this
person was off-the-charts-timid. But we are taught from day one that
if you don't have a good bid to make and are strong in opener's suit,
to pass IN TEMPO. With partner still in the auction in the protect
position, pass is not anything close to the spoiler you make it out to
be.
Jim
ted
You are correct she showed terrrible judgement in passing. Because of
this injudicious decision we need to protect her. +450
Peter Clinch
> Here is an interesting hypothetical:
>
> I made the following post to a couple different online bridge forums:
>
> >Here is a hand that is generating considerable discussion on another forum.
> >
> >You hold
> >
> >S AJx
> >H KQxx
> >D Axxxx
> >C A
> >
> >The opponents are playing strong club and 5 card majors.
> >
> >The auction starts
> >
> >(P) - P - (1H) - ???
> >
> >What call do you make?
>
> If gotten roughly 40 responses. A grand total of 2 players chose to
> pass with the hand in question. From my perspective, passing this hand
> is far more unusual than the 2C advance that caused this whole
> brouhaha.
>
seeing how many people pass 3C when it comes round to them (1) without
questions and (2) after partner has enquired about 2C and has been told
it is natural....
Peter.
New York, NY.
anon
LOL. No, because of the subsequent misinformation, she is entitled to
protection, based on the alternatives related to future actions.
But nice one.
Jim
anon
nige1
> I made the following post to a couple different
> strong club and 5 card majors.
> S:AJx H:KQxx D:Axxxx C:A
> in question.
[nige1]
An interesting poll but the result is irrelevant
to this discussion because the first pass came
*before* the alleged infraction (the 2C response
on a 2-count and the putative non-disclosure of
its systemic meaning).
The law penalizes egregious action by the victims
of an infraction only if it occurs *after* the infraction.
Here, for example, even if she initially miscounted
her points, the law allows her recount and recover
on the next round, *given correct information*.
Anyway just because only 2 polled players passed
does not make the pass bad. Sometimes, in a
bidding competition, for example, only a tiny
minority of competitors find the correct bid,
as recommended by the expert panel. Similarly,
in these cases, you do not judge correctness by
the low standards of the victim's peers.