On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:30:25 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> derek wrote
> >On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:00:28 AM UTC-4, dake50 wrote:
> >> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:47:10 AM UTC-5, Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> > Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
> >> > anticipated opponents?
> >> Even to having a second CC for certain opponents.
> >Highly illegal.
> Is it? I think not!
> It may be illegal in certain jurisdictions, but ti is not against the > Laws, and is certainly permitted by at least one jurisdiction.
Don't be a jerk. I was responding to ONE specific poster, who complains regularly about exactly this sort of practice in the ACBL, and it is very definitely illegal in the ACBL.
I used to play a home-grown (but at the time legal) natural canape
system. Several pairs would change from "Michaels" to "natural" for
their first cue-bids. We didn't play negative doubles either; we could
have without much strain and maybe we should have. We did collect more
penalties than other pairs but that was probably because we read Simon.
>>> if you are
>>> starting a new team match against a different pair, you can change
>>> your entire system.
>On 2012-11-07 8:30 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
>> Are you sure?
>That's the case in the ACBL, at least in normal team games. Every >match is considered a separate "session," and the rule forbids changing >system "during a session." You could change partnerships, after all, >so how can it make sense to disallow system changes?
>The one area I'm not sure about is events where system cards are >required to be filed in advance. In those it might or might not be >permissible to file more than one card per partnership. But in >practice, I don't know of any events in the ACBL that require advance >filing. In fact, I don't think even the USBF events for international >team selection require advance filing. Anybody know for sure?
Ok, but nothing in this thread [except, of course, some assumptins by some later posters] said that this was the ACBL.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:30:25 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>> derek wrote
>> >On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:00:28 AM UTC-4, dake50 wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:47:10 AM UTC-5, Howard Brazee wrote:
>> >> > Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
>> >> > anticipated opponents?
>> >> Even to having a second CC for certain opponents.
>> >Highly illegal.
>> Is it? I think not!
>> It may be illegal in certain jurisdictions, but ti is not against the
>> Laws, and is certainly permitted by at least one jurisdiction.
>Don't be a jerk. I was responding to ONE specific poster, who complains >regularly about exactly this sort of practice in the ACBL, and it is >very definitely illegal in the ACBL.
Neither the OP nor the nor the subject nor the thread generally nor the post to which you replied mention the ACBL.
I think a definition of being a jerk might include someone who assumes everything is about the ACBL with no evidence.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>> Don't be a jerk. I was responding to ONE specific poster, who complains >> regularly about exactly this sort of practice in the ACBL, and it is >> very definitely illegal in the ACBL.
David Stevenson:
> I think a definition of being a jerk might include someone who assumes > everything is about the ACBL with no evidence.
And then there are those who, when an explanation is given of why it was
being assumed in the context of a particular posting, start talking
about the assumption being applied to "everything".
-- Mark Brader, Toronto | "Mark is probably right about something,
m...@vex.net | but I forget what" -- Rayan Zachariassen
On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:08:02 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> Neither the OP nor the nor the subject nor the thread generally nor > the post to which you replied mention the ACBL.
Nevertheless, _I_ know he's ACBL, and from previous responses you've made to him, so do you.
> I think a definition of being a jerk might include someone who assumes > everything is about the ACBL with no evidence.
Or someone who makes specious excuses, given that we both know it WAS ACBL.
On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:22:42 PM UTC-8, derek wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:08:02 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> > Neither the OP nor the nor the subject nor the thread generally nor > > the post to which you replied mention the ACBL.
> Nevertheless, _I_ know he's ACBL, and from previous responses you've made to him, so do you.
> > I think a definition of being a jerk might include someone who assumes > > everything is about the ACBL with no evidence.
> Or someone who makes specious excuses, given that we both know it WAS ACBL.
Well, if he intended to ask his question only of ACBL players, he shouldn't have started it with "Does anybody here ..." implying the question was for everybody on the newsgroup.
On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:29:09 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> Well, if he intended to ask his question only of ACBL players, he shouldn't have started it with "Does anybody here ..." implying the question was for everybody on the newsgroup.
I'm sure Howard didn't intend his question to be answered only by ACBL players - but I wasn't responding to Howard, I was responding to Dake, about conditions where HE plays.
>On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:08:02 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>> Neither the OP nor the nor the subject nor the thread generally nor
>> the post to which you replied mention the ACBL.
>Nevertheless, _I_ know he's ACBL, and from previous responses you've
>made to him, so do you.
I don't remember where people come from: why should I bother? it is
normal to say where you are from, especially in OPs where it matters. If
not, it is perfectly reasonable to make a general answer.
>> I think a definition of being a jerk might include someone who assumes
>> everything is about the ACBL with no evidence.
>Or someone who makes specious excuses, given that we both know it WAS ACBL.
I did not know, and you are just being a pain in the behind.
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
> How do you know a beginner from a non-beginner? You can't always be
> familiar with everyone playing, even at a local club.
In practice, it hasn't been a problem. It helps that my partner is the
"Stu Goodgold of New England" and knows every bridge player in the
region plus about half in the rest of the country. :-) If we are not
sure, a few friendly questions ("Where are you folks from? How did you
find our club? How long have you been playing?") will reveal the
answer. If we are still not sure, we can ask the Director or just treat
them as a protected pair. As I say, not a problem.
> And do you inform your partner that you are switching systems when a
> new pair sits down? Couldn't that be a little embarassing for the
> opps?
I certainly hope not! In practice, a quick glance at the upcoming pair and "GCC? Yep." or "No, Midchart is OK." is plenty. Most often we don't even need that because we know the opponents well, and anyway if we don't prealert the multi we're not playing it. The newbies wouldn't have the slightest idea what we're talking about even if they heard our brief dialog, which they usually don't because we're not all at the table yet.
If worse came to worst, we could say "We have some Midchart methods to prealert." If the opponents look baffled, they're protected. If they strenuously object, they're not. :-) But as I say, it has never come to that.
-- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
>> That's the case in the ACBL, at least in normal team games. Every
>> match is considered a separate "session," and the rule forbids changing
>> system "during a session." You could change partnerships, after all, so
>> how can it make sense to disallow system changes?
On 2012-11-10 1:50 PM, mc11001...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is true in Swisses, head-to-head knockouts, and in round-robins
> that are run as though they were Swisses. I am not sure but I do not
> believe it is true within each half of each segment of a 3-team
> round-robin where you can't substitute.
If you mean a normal 3-way match (used when an odd number of teams are in a Swiss), why can't you substitute? Each match is separate, even though they are played over two rounds. Obviously you have to substitute in such a way than no one plays the same board twice. Also, no kibitzing one's own team (or anywhere else if duplicated boards are used). Those don't seem difficult requirements, and I wouldn't think either substituting players or changing system is forbidden. Maybe there's some rule I'm unaware of, though.
> It is definitely NOT true in
> the movement typically used for board-a-match round-robins (and which
> is sometimes also used for IMP round-robins,
Yes, I'd overlooked those because they are now fairly rare. There's no reason system changes have to be illegal in these, but I think they probably are for ACBL-governed events. (As always, clubs can do whatever they want.)
Swiss Pairs would be an unclear case. One would hope there would be regulations if the happy day that the ACBL ran any ever came.
-- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
>On 2012-11-10 2:55 AM, Stu Goodgold wrote:
>> How do you know a beginner from a non-beginner? You can't always be
>> familiar with everyone playing, even at a local club.
>In practice, it hasn't been a problem. It helps that my partner is the
>"Stu Goodgold of New England" and knows every bridge player in the
>region plus about half in the rest of the country. :-) If we are not
>sure, a few friendly questions ("Where are you folks from? How did you
>find our club? How long have you been playing?") will reveal the
>answer. If we are still not sure, we can ask the Director or just treat
>them as a protected pair. As I say, not a problem.
If you say "Where are you folks from and they reply "Taranty Falls" with a happy smile, they are poor players. If they give you a surly look they are medium players. Annoyingly, good players do either!
-- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
On Nov 9, 9:32 pm, Steve Willner <swill...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> >>> ... having a second CC for certain opponents.
> On 2012-11-05 11:48 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > I think it's illegal in the ACBL,
> It's illegal in games controlled by the ACBL. At an ACBL club, it's up
> to the club. At our club, we can play almost anything, but we're
> _required_ to avoid "weird stuff" against beginners. In practice that
> means no multi 2D against the beginners. Technically we should have a
> second system card, but in practice we don't bother because none of the
> beginners looks at one anyway. I suppose if we had lots of differences
> we'd bring a second SC just in case.
There was a pair around here, southern Connecticut, that was
experimenting with Multi. They would simply _ask_ the opponents in a
club game if we, or whoever, would mind if they played it. They didn't
bother to ask novices and life novices, just refrained from playing it
against them. Most of the people that they asked said that they did
not mind.
They explained the bid and had two file cards, one with a description
and one with a suggested defense and they would tell us to ignore the
Weak Two Diamond that they had on their convention cards once we said
it was ok to play the Multi.
We played several rounds against them while they played it but it
never came up. They may still play it but they don't live around here
anymore.
I think you are confusing deviations from SC with something totally different.
Yes 2xA yes/no 2s is a deviation expected or not.
But 2s on S:AKxxx +AK is not a deviation, that is totally a system difference.
On the SC? Just against this pair? Just against this pair's methods?
Which are you advocating?
