[olegru]

david_c, on May 28 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

olegru, on May 28 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

I do not want to continue infinity thread about "no psyche game" (which simply is not a bridge game) but this particular bid is not even a  psyche.

What was it then, a misclick?

No. It was just a one bid available for me.
I know I will finally bid 6 or 7 diamonds.
I don’t know if hearts or diamonds bid of any level will be forcing for my partner. We have no agreements about splinters. (Remember, I just join as a substitute and have absolutely no ideas what is my partner’s style and how educated in bridge he is. I don’t even know if we are playing 2 over 1 or not.)
New suit without jump in this bidding must be forcing. I can not bid spades because partner could later correct final diamond contract to spades.
What left?
Direct jump to 6 or 7 diamonds or temporary 3 clubs and see what happened. Oh, sorry, I forgot about Blackwood.
OK, let see.
4NT just a plain stupid. Partners reply give me no useful information at all
7 diamond – wild.
6 diamond – too modest. Even worse because it could induce opponents to bid 6 spades.
3 clubs at least will be lead directing if opponents will sacrifice in spades.

You can call 3 clubs bid lead directing or tactical.
If you are really like you can call it even a psyche bid but truth is it is a normal bridge bid made to increase chances to win. I am sure in described circumstances it will be not a last choice for a number of a good players.

[blackshoe]

hotShot, on May 28 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

The 3♣ bid was not alerted, so it should be natural, which it is not . The failure to alert an artificial bid, calls for a score adjustment, if opps where damaged.
If you claim that it is not artificial, than bidding 3♣ without a card in ♣ is regarded a psyche and in a "no psyche" tourney this calls for an adjusted score.

I bet that opps argued that because you promised to have ♣'s, leading ♣ is more attractive than leading ♠A (winning a ♠ trick).
This is plausible enough to claim damage.

Let's leave aside the question of a "no-psyche" tourney for a moment.

The argument you present in your first paragraph is nonsense. The requirement is to alert agreements, and Olegru clearly stated he and his partner didn't have any special agreement about the meaning of this bid. Therefore there can be no expectation it will be alerted.

It was a psyche if and only if Olegru did it deliberately, knowing that the other players at the table, including his partner, would take it as natural. Generally speaking, psyches are legal, and if he psyched that changes nothing I said above.

Now, if this was a "no-psyches" tournament, and Olegru psyched, clearly he's subject to whatever penalty the Tournament Organizer established for the offense. One thing though - Olegru was a sub. Did he know it was a no-psyches tournament?

IAC, it is unconscionable for a TD to make a ruling - any ruling - and not tell the players concerned what the ruling is and why he is making it.

The fact that players argue they were damaged does not obligate the TD to agree with them.

[1eyedjack]

hotShot, on May 28 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

The 3♣ bid was not alerted, so it should be natural, which it is not . The failure to alert an artificial bid, calls for a score adjustment, if opps where damaged.
If you claim that it is not artificial, than bidding 3♣ without a card in ♣ is regarded a psyche and in a "no psyche" tourney this calls for an adjusted score.

I bet that opps argued that because you promised to have ♣'s, leading ♣ is more attractive than leading ♠A (winning a ♠ trick).
This is plausible enough to claim damage.

Leaving aside the gross discourtesy on the part of the TD, "plausible" is not sufficient for such unilateral action.

Incidentally do you have some inside information that this was a no-psyche tourney? It was not mentioned in the OP.

Furthermore, it seems oxymoronic at best to host a goulash tourney that bans tactical bidding, but that is of course irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that while Edgar Kaplan once said (correctly, IMO) something to the effect that "partnership agreements are agreements between partners, not promises to opponents" some of the people organizing games on BBO want to make such agreements be those promises to opponents. That is not bridge, people.

[Old York]

olegru, on May 28 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

Hi Tony,
I guess grand slams on your tournament banned too?

I Strongly resent the impliction that this adjustment occurred in any of my tournaments.

I suggest that you should have made some attempt to contact the tournament director who made this adjustment. Failing that, you should have contacted AnnC8, who was the Host of the Lion and Lamb Goulash # 711 in which you subbed. I cannot comment about the rules enforced in these respected tournaments.
As is always the case, you should read the tournament rules before agreeing to play, the fact that you subbed seems irrelevant.

Had this occurred in the Grand Old Duke of York Tournaments, I would have demanded that you explain your 3C bid, before making any decision. I would prefer a 4C splinter bid (alerted). I would also have questioned South about his double, if it were Lightner then it also should have been alerted. I would also ask North why he failed to cash his Ace.

Sounds to me like a comedy of errors all round. I would not have adjusted, but would warn all players to alert and explain their bids in future.

Tony (Duke of York)

[blackshoe]

Ah! I've got it now! Self alerts online! Alert and explain every single call according to ... what? Partnership agreement? The intended meaning of the call? Pick one, I suppose.

[olegru]

Old York, on May 28 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

I suggest that you should have made some attempt to contact the tournament director who made this adjustment. Failing that, you should have contacted AnnC8, who was the Host of the Lion and Lamb Goulash # 711 in which you subbed. I cannot comment about the rules enforced in these respected tournaments.

Had this occurred in the Grand Old Duke of York Tournaments, I would have demanded that you explain your 3C bid, before making any decision. I would also have questioned South about his double, if it were Lightner then it also, should have been alerted. I would also ask North why he failed to cash his Ace.

Sounds to me like a comedy of errors all round. I would not have adjusted, but would warn all players to alert and explain their bids in future.

Tony (Duke of York)

I did
She reply adjustment was made her co-director Tony and it is up to him to adjust or adjust back. She didn't reply about his BBO nick name and I was not able to speak with him directly. I assumed you are that mysterious Tony, my sincere apologies if I was wrong.
I completely agree with the rest of your comment here except I am sure 3 clubs bid was NOT alterable there.

[hotShot]

olegru, on May 28 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

Any ideas why?

You asked for ideas, I suggest 2. Don't blame me, if you don't like them.

Playing without agreements is not bridge.
Subbing into tourneys is covered by the bridge laws.

Playing cards without dbl or psyches is not bridge.

[hotShot]

blackshoe, on May 28 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

The argument you present in your first paragraph is nonsense. The requirement is to alert agreements, and Olegru clearly stated he and his partner didn't have any special agreement about the meaning of this bid. Therefore there can be no expectation it will be alerted.

You don't need to convince me about the laws, try to convince those who state: "Alert all artificial bids!" for their tourneys.

blackshoe, on May 28 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

The fact that players argue they were damaged does not obligate the TD to agree with them.

If you had looked at the cards and thought about the bidding, you'd realize that if East's 3♣ promised 4♣'s and West's 4NT agreed the ♣ fit and since North is looking at 5♣'s, south has to be void and ♠A is a entry to play back to north for a 2nd ♦ ruff. So the ♣ lead is necessary, but if 3♣ is artificial north would have to lead his ♠A before one of the opps can drop his ♠'s.

[jtfanclub]

hotShot, on May 28 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

olegru, on May 28 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

Any ideas why?

You asked for ideas, I suggest 2. Don't blame me, if you don't like them.

Playing without agreements is not bridge.
Subbing into tourneys is covered by the bridge laws.

Playing cards without dbl or psyches is not bridge.

And as I've said before, looking at pixels instead of cards isn't bridge.
People sitting at home in front of a computer isn't bridge.

This whole 'This isn't bridge' argument is silly (and yes, I know you didn't bring it up). Things like no psyches and no kibitzers are illegal in face-to-face bridge, but very useful for preventing cheating in on-line bridge.

It's not the same game.

[olegru]

hotShot, on May 28 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

You asked for ideas, I suggest 2. Don't blame me, if you don't like them.


Playing without agreements is not bridge.
Subbing into tourneys is covered by the bridge laws.

Playing cards without dbl or psyches is not bridge.

No blaming of cause
Sorry if my post sounded like that.

I am sure your suggestion is right, and director's thoughts were along that lines. Problem is directors’ decisions like that they are:
1. Contradict the bridge law;
2. Do not match the ethic standards for directing;
3. Make not so educated in bridge people take a wrong view about the bridge law and bridge game.


Hmm. Just curiose. According what law from the bridge code "Playing without agreements is not bridge"?

[mike777]

"Hmm. Just curiose. According what law from the bridge code "Playing without agreements is not bridge"?"

I cannot speak for other countries but in the ACBL land it is illegal. I would be surprised if it was legal in other countries.

Not sure how you play a partnership game without some implicit agreements.

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on May 28 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 28 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

The argument you present in your first paragraph is nonsense. The requirement is to alert agreements, and Olegru clearly stated he and his partner didn't have any special agreement about the meaning of this bid. Therefore there can be no expectation it will be alerted.

You don't need to convince me about the laws, try to convince those who state: "Alert all artificial bids!" for their tourneys.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the Alerting rules in the EBU?

Admittedly, not every artificial bid is alertable (I think that there is an exception for Stayman). But nearly all of them are...

[Old York]

NickRW, on May 27 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

I strongly disagree with that statement. I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties: ...........
In truth, LHO often doesn't sit for the redouble anyway.
Nick

Hi Nick
I think that you have inadvertantly proved my point, thx

If you have a special agreement as to what your re-double shows then it should be alerted and explained to your oppo. otherwise you have formed an undisclosed partnership agreement.

The very fact that you do not expect the re-double to be the final contract, again proves that such a call is semi-artificial, part of your bidding system and is perfectly normal and legal.

My ONLY objection is to sabotage bids...I have made that very clear in all of my tournaments......mountains, or molehills?

Tony (Duke of York)

[blackshoe]

mike777, on May 28 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

"Hmm. Just curiose. According what law from the bridge code "Playing without agreements is not bridge"?"

I cannot speak for other countries but in the ACBL land it is illegal. I would be surprised if it was legal in other countries.

Not sure how you play a partnership game without some implicit agreements.

The laws are the same everywhere, save for some elections not relevant to this question.

You assert that it is illegal in ACBL to play without agreements. Which law says so, please?

[mike777]

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...l-AllEvents.pdf

See very top of page one and then see page 5.

Simply put if you say you have no agreements the ACBL forces you to have some and in fact tells you what they are and you must play by them. If not then illegal.

I would be surprised if most if not all other countries do not have something similiar.

I know you cannot play in WBF(Bermuda Bowl) events with no agreements.

In any event how can you play bridge with zero agreements? Would you not have at least one implicit agreement?

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on May 28 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the Alerting rules in the EBU?

Er, barf bag please.

I have tried to remember them all - I have - and I alert and announce at least as much as anyone at the local club - but some people obviously are either unaware, resent and simply cannot recall all the rules. Frankly nobody really cares that much anyway. These rules seem to me to be an unmitigated disaster that are quietly being ignored by ordinary folks - or at least that is the situation I've seen.

This is not the only club either.

I assume that if I bothered to go to a proper tournament with EBU directors I'd have to sharpen up my act - but the rules on what doubles are alertable and which are not - well I genuinely don't understand - and I'd rather spend memory cells on system rather than on exactly what double is alertable when.

And as for the latest proposal that will pretty well force everyone to become a member whether they like it or not while doing nothing to actually increase the number of bridge players in real life - well - don't get me started.

And then there's that Orange Book - uck.

You may gather that I am not an EBU member, do not want to be one and consider this body to be more in the character of part of the problem rather than a vehicle for finding solutions.

Nick

[NickRW]

Old York, on May 28 2008, 09:55 PM, said:

NickRW, on May 27 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

I strongly disagree with that statement.  I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties: ...........
In truth, LHO often doesn't sit for the redouble anyway.
Nick

Hi Nick
I think that you have inadvertantly proved my point, thx

If you have a special agreement as to what your re-double shows then it should be alerted and explained to your oppo. otherwise you have formed an undisclosed partnership agreement.

The very fact that you do not expect the re-double to be the final contract, again proves that such a call is semi-artificial, part of your bidding system and is perfectly normal and legal.

My ONLY objection is to sabotage bids...I have made that very clear in all of my tournaments......mountains, or molehills?

Tony (Duke of York)

Well, I agree with your last sentence - but I am not sure I understand your reasoning. Opener has 12 at least, RHO probably has 15 and for my (what I regard as a) quite natural redouble I probably have at least 9 - ok I cut some close to the bone and I might have a real nice looking 8. That is likely to leave LHO with 5 at most, often 4 or less. It is not my fault that they often rabbit from their partner's double and my redouble - purely my observation of what happens quite a lot of the time.

But the point is we take the attitude that if you're prepared to double, we are prepared to call your bluff quite a percentage of the time. I don't think there can be a more natural use of the call. If that is regarded as "artificial" or "conventional" in some parts of the world because it is more common to use xx for SOS, well, ok - but that is an artifact of general practice and/or the rules made up by some governing body rather than what is genuinely "natural" versus "artificial".

Anyway, I kind of gather you'd expect me to alert my partner's redouble in this situation - in which case I am somewhat perplexed, but we'd get along fine

Nick

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on May 28 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

barmar, on May 28 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

NickRW, on May 27 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

Old York, on May 26 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties:

xx = anything where we will probably make
bid = 5 cards, we probably wouldn't have made 1N
pass = no 5 carder, we probably won't make, semi forcing unless partner is max and particularly well suited to NT and not got a 5 carder of their own.

I wonder if this would fall within the spirit of what the "no redoubles" tournaments would allow. While the redouble isn't strictly artificial, it's part of a conventional runout system -- it's the only way to allow partner to play 1NT when they double for penalty.

I'm not sure I've played against any weak NT players who don't use this redouble, it's such a logical approach. So if it's not allowed, the tournament is practically banning weak NT. While I don't personally play weak NT, and wouldn't mind not having to defend against them, i think THAT would be going too far.

I'm not sure you have read the post carefully enough, there's nothing 'conventional' about the runout system, which could easily be summarised as:

xx = natural, strong
bids = natural, weak
pass = natural (not strong enough to xx, nothing suitable to bid)

Many weak NT players _do_ use a redouble as artificial here (e.g. showing a 5-card suit somewhere, requesting a 2C bid from opener). But I also like the 'natural' approach.

You're right, I got it backwards. The common approach I've seen is "pass forces redouble". So if responder wants to play 1NT, he passes, opener redoubles (which is artificial, and hence allowed in these tournaments), and then responder passes the redouble (converting the artificial redouble to business). And a responder redouble is used artificially, I think asking opener to start bidding 4-card suits up the line.

So, as Emily Litella would have said, "never mind..."

[blackshoe]

mike777, on May 28 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...l-AllEvents.pdf

See very top of page one and then see page 5.

Simply put if you say you have no agreements the ACBL forces you to have some and in fact tells you what they are and you must play by them. If not then illegal.

I would be surprised if most if not all other countries do not have something similiar.

I know you cannot play in WBF(Bermuda Bowl) events with no agreements.

In any event how can you play bridge with zero agreements? Would you not have at least one implicit agreement?

I asked you which law. You gave me a regulation - one which applies only in ACBL tournaments (sectional and higher). Besides, the regulation doesn't say you must have agreements, it says you must have two "substantially completed" convention cards. It doesn't, naturally, define what "substantially completed" means. I guess we'd have to consult a dictionary.

But never mind. I will stipulate that when two people sit down to play bridge as a partnership, they must have some mutual understanding of what their bids mean - and that mutual understanding is, in general, disclosable to opponents. I will stipulate that the laws (Law 40 in particular) allow the sponsoring organization to specify how that disclosure is to be conducted. In view of that, I suppose it's not incorrect to say that claiming to play with no agreements whatsoever is illegal. But I don't recall ever hearing of a case where a pair made that claim. Do you know of one?

The above notwithstanding, there is nothing in law or regulation that requires a pair to have an agreement regarding every possible call, even if Bobby Wolfe wishes it were so.