[iviehoff]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 3 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

...although we by no means open all of them....

Are you sure you have fully disclosed your methods?

[Cyberyeti]

iviehoff, on Oct 5 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 3 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

...although we by no means open all of them....

Are you sure you have fully disclosed your methods?

Full disclosure of methods is awkward unless you want quite a large piece of paper.

We disclose on the card the simple rule, which is "will not contain 2 aces" and indicate that vulnerability will colour this slightly (but only slightly).

The other considerations are quite complicated so we wait to be asked.

Example:

xx
AKJx
xxxx
xxx

We will pass this (definitely in first seat) as we would have to open 2♦ (rebidding 3♥ if partner bids 2N in first), but we'd open

xx
KJxx
xxxx
xxx

in first seat as we open 2♥ and rebid 3♦ with the minimum, but in 3rd seat (where partner can't ask) in theory we should open 2♦ so it's more of a tossup. We might also lie about the shape and open 2♥ on either hand.

The rebid considerations may well mean opening the hands with the red suits the other way round.

Also we wouldn't open Jxxxx, AQx, Qxx, xx for example where you don't have a bad hand, but the virtue of it is not in your suit and you have plenty of defence.

I'd welcome any discussion on how one should disclose agreements that require a page of A4 to fully explain. I struggle to keep hold of a convention card through a session of bridge let alone extra documentation.

[bluejak]

A player's approach to defensive bidding is never really described on a SC. We have had many rulings where partner has passed and later bid spades and people say "but he cannot have six spades". Any partner of mine who opened a weak two on

Jxxxxx
Axx
Ax
xx

would speedily be an ex-partner.

Would you bid 1♠ over 1♦ with

A7xxx
Axx
Ax
xxx

or

KQTxx
Jxxx
x
xxx ?

I would overcall with the second and not the first: many people I know would overcall with the first and not the second.

In general, I think that people who want to know style have to ask rather than rely on SCs.

And my experiences of asking about style in certain jurisdictions are not happy experiences ...

[vigfus]

campboy, on Oct 4 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

Whatever your personal feelings about a treatment or convention, here we rule according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2007). If a player has landed on his feet not by being lucky but by illegally using information from partner's alert -- although there is legitimate debate as to whether that is what happened here -- then we must adjust the score.

How experienced is the pair who opens 2♠, ranging 0-10 HCP's and 4+ spades? In my opinion, usually advanced+ at least.
How experienced is the pair who makes a 2NT bid over weak 2 with 12 HCP's? In my opinion, usually advanced- or less, sure no expert.
So now we come again to the first statement of mine about usage of weak preemtive bids. Those bids have the main purpose of giving the opps a difficult situation to deal with. That worked very well this time. LHO made a very dangerus bid of 2NT. AND his partner misunderstood his bid completly. So here we have a 2-0 in favour of making the opp's miserable.
Of course we have UI here. But because of that, is it mandatory to rule that the 2NT bidder has to make some idiotic decision because of that ? I say NO
And now we come to the final contrac of lucky 3NT. How can we justify some ruling to ensure that the opp's will have 3-0 because they had already 2-0 ?

My main point of this that the TD should try to protect weak players against strong players in situation like this. The weaker players get enough bad boards, and will not be happy of unfair ruling (in their opinion) when they finally have good board against such preeemtive bids.

And finally. I use the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2007) for ruling.

[Cyberyeti]

As I understand it, our opponents were experienced players, but had recently arrived in the UK from South Africa and apparently they find the style of bridge in the UK is very different and a lot more aggressive.

They won our Corwen qualifier (county pairs championship) but found the final an eye opening experience.

[iviehoff]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 5 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

Full disclosure of methods is awkward unless you want quite a large piece of paper.
...
The other considerations are quite complicated so we wait to be asked.
...

One potential concern I had was that you might be randomly opening 1S on a certain bad hands some days but not other days, in effect having a a cover for systemic psyching. But your description seems to have suggested that is not the case.

The large sheet of paper issue is a problem, as Bluejak says. But it is more of a problem when it is a bid of a kind one does not routinely encounter, as I would have absolutely no idea what kind of hands you might or might not routinely open 2S with, on, say a 3-count.

[campboy]

vigfus, on Oct 5 2009, 11:58 PM, said:

Of course we have UI here. But because of that, is it mandatory to rule that the 2NT bidder has to make some idiotic decision because of that ? I say NO

Suppose the player had not heard the alert. What would he have done? Well, if they do not play transfers in response to NT overcalls he would probably have passed. So passing is hardly idiotic, and (again assuming they do not play transfers here) it is a logical alternative (but only for some pairs -- we need to know more about this pair's methods to decide).

Now did the UI suggest 3NT over pass? Yes, of course it did. Was there damage? Yes, since 3NT makes.

Law 16B says that we adjust if a player has UI, and he chooses from among logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by the UI over another, and there is damage.

So, you may say NO, but the laws say YES.