[paulhar]

I watched the first BIL lecture where it was pointed out to me (by a cow mooing at me) that I was just plain wrong (again!) that bridge is a difficult game. I'd like to support my position.

I play in a tournament once a year whether I need to or not. Every year there are rule changes and it's tough to keep up with them. (I must admit I do a poor job.) I heard a rumor that beginners have to alert strong two bids now? (!) A few years ago, they had to alert the previously 'standard' penalty doubles of an overcall. Different directors (and committees) have different ideas about what cue-bids are alertable. All this nonsense about UI and hesitations and the like, it matters what week you show up what the ruling will be. You may not have to be Einstein to play tournament bridge, but you'd better be a pretty good lawyer! If the rules are so easy to understand, why does it matter who's on a committee what ruling you get? Any game where the rules are so tough that experts have to agonize on committees cannot possibly be called a simple game with any level of seriousness.

[Chamaco]

paulhar, on Jul 10 2004, 01:25 AM, said:

Any game where the rules are so tough that experts have to agonize on committees cannot possibly be called a simple game with any level of seriousness.

Maybe we should all try to be less serious

PS Slothy where are you ?

[hallway]

What are you talking about ! ??????

quote:-O

I watched the first BIL lecture where it was pointed out to me (by a cow mooing at me) that I was just plain wrong (again!) that bridge is a difficult game.

[hallway]

Oh I have it figured out now !! - wonderful what a couple of hours sleep can do !!

You answered the question - gave the wrong answer !! and then didn't like the sound effects - lol

The question was - Is bridge a difficult game ?

If you answered 'yes' (which you obviously did !!) you were told you were wrong. To use your description - the 'cow mooed' (gawd and I practised that for hours )

If you answered 'no' (which you obviously did not !!) you would have received a fanfare telling you that you are right.

We are of the opinion that bridge is NOT a difficult game and that is the message we have for BBO's beginners - fear not we tell them, use the little grey cells and it will become easy - but the real beauty of it is that it will forever be challenging

hmmmmm - could have sworn I only invited beginners from the Lobby, ah well these little grey cells do flicker quite often these days

[Cave_Draco]

To the question "Is bridge a diffuclt game?" The answer has to be a resounding NO!

If you amend the question to "Is bridge a difficult game to play well?" The answer becomes a qualified yes.

However, age is no barrier - bridge can be a lifelong learning experience!


With respect to tournaments & rulings...
Playing one tournament per year is most of the problem! If one played 52 tournaments per year then alert/announce rules would become "Ah! OK! Set #1 in this tournament." Bear in mind that the rules for a tournament also vary depending on the country and level of the tournament.

As to Unauthorised Information and hesitation, they come under Ethics.
It would be ideal if all bridge players were ethical... In the real world, ethics sometimes need enforcing; sad but true.
For example, if, after a stop bid, your LHO gazes at the ceiling & whistles? Even if you don't call the director, your RHO is obliged to not draw any inference.
If anyone knows of a better mousetrap...

[Chamaco]

Cave_Draco, on Jul 10 2004, 02:05 PM, said:

It would be ideal if all bridge players were ethical... In the real world, ethics sometimes need enforcing; sad but true.

Perhaps a better thread would be
"Are bridge players difficult persons to play with and against?"

But I'd better stop this before we lose control of the discussion LOLLL

[paulhar]

Cave_Draco, on Jul 10 2004, 09:05 AM, said:

Playing one tournament per year is most of the problem! If one played 52 tournaments per year then alert/announce rules would become "Ah! OK! Set #1 in this tournament."
(portions deleted)

Yes, but playing 52 tournaments a year causes other problems, like having to find a new spouse

There's more to life than bridge!

[Cave_Draco]

paulhar, on Jul 10 2004, 02:41 PM, said:

Yes, but playing 52 tournaments a year causes other problems, like having to find a new spouse 

AND...

Suffering dirty looks from your cat,

[paulhar]

I'd like to illustrate an incident that not only explains why I only play tournament bridge once a year but also that not only are the rules confusing, they make no sense!

During one of our annual tournament outings, I opened 1NT. Lefty bid 2D, which showed hearts. Partner bid 2H. I didn't alert the "cue-bid" because lefty looked like the type of supercilious lady that would say "Cuebids are self alerting, you know..." (how right I was as you will see.) I bid 2S and partner raised to 4.

My partner put down a dummy, a game-going hand with queen fourth of spades. LHO looked puzzled, gave me a stare (maybe trying to figure out if I was as surprised as she was), got nothing from me, and we played on.

Well, the play went pretty much my way and the condescending lady who realized she was getting close to a zero was livid.

She: Why didn't you alert two hearts?

Me: Cue-bids are self alerting.

She: She didn't cue-bid, I bid diamonds and she bid hearts. Clearly since you didn't alert, I thought you were playing transfers.

Me: Transfers? I thought you were supposed to say 'Transfer' if playing transfers. We don't play transfers over 1NT.

This really added fuel to the fire. She had just got a zero against what appeared to be two imbeciles that don't even play transfers.

She: So what was two hearts anyway? If I had known, I would have made a different lead.

I would have made the same tricks on any lead, but I didn't think it wise to mention that fact since I would have had to describe the play needed which she probably wouldn't have understood.

Me: When our opponents overcall our NT, we play a cue-bid as Stayman.

She: Well, then she should have bid 3D. Then you wouldn't have to alert.

My poor partner is rollling her eyes over all this.

Me: Let's get the director over here. Somebody needs to be educated.
(I should know better than to say that - when I do, it's always ME that needs to be educated and this time was no exception.)

So we explained the situation to the director and he reiterated her position that 3D Stayman would not have been alertable since LHO actually BID diamonds but that 2H Stayman is. I meekly queried, "This is the Flight A. Does anybody expect that my partner really wants to play in the opponent's suit?" He said, "Of course not, that's why this board isn't going to committee."

The more I thought about this, the more confused I was. I had to go to the head director and make sure I got the correct ruling. The head director agreed with LHO.

OK, I just don't get it. Isn't this 'cuebid self alerting' rule because when you cuebid, the opponents know you don't mean the suit? If I open 1NT, LHO bids 2D showing hearts, and partner bids 3D, isn't it just normal to assume that my partner bid 3D as if the opponents had bid 2H, showing diamonds? And if 3D meant anything but diamonds, don't the opponents deserve the courtesy of an alert? I would think I was cheating if I deliberately didn't alert 3D not showing diamonds in that situation because it's a cue-bid. And yet, apparently, that's the rules. Does it make sense to you? Maybe that's what the letter of the law says, but certainly not the spirit. Like I said, it's a game for lawyers.

And yet, when partner bids 2H, which is obviously not hearts, I must alert because nobody before her actually stated hearts. These are the rules and I'm supposed to understand them? And, I could have guessed that this was the rule in advance, when common sense tells me otherwise?

Playing 52 times a year would give me 51 extra chances to meet people like this. Not for me. I'll happily play on BBO and alert everything.

Y'all just keep telling me this is a simple game. AARGH!

[Chamaco]

paulhar, on Jul 10 2004, 05:25 PM, said:

Playing 52 times a year would give me 51 extra chances to meet people like this. Not for me. I'll happily play on BBO and alert everything.

Paul, totally agree with you.
The bridge world is full of such people who at any board will try to catch every single word you say 8or do NOT say) to steal the board.
Very very unpleasant. The most unpleasant thing is that at the end, they will justify themeself saying to the world that it is YOU who tried to steal and so you were rightly punished.
These are the sort players that will not accept "commoinsense" rulings by a director.


But, like a I said, perhaps a better thread would be
"Are bridge players difficult persons to play with and against?"

[Cave_Draco]

Quite a convoluted situation,

I would agree with the Director in that:

2♥ was NOT a cue-bid! It was Stayman! Which would not be the natural meaning, it should therefore be alerted.
I do disagree with the director's comment about 3♦, just because your opponents bid a fictiious ♦ suit doesn't mean that 3♦ loses it's natural meaning.
Having said that, I don't think that your opponents have much to gripe about, since 2♥ is obviously some kind of take-out.
What was the director's deciscion? Average minus to you? Fair for a very minor transgression.

It is wise to avoid discussing contentious bidding with one's opponents, call the Director and explain to him/her.


A really fun possibility occurs if you had alerted 2♥ as a cue-bid, and LHO had forgotten that they were playing 2♦ as showing ♥s.

[EarlPurple]

I don't think it is that difficult to teach anyone the rule that:

- If in doubt alert.

[Chamaco]

EarlPurple, on Jul 10 2004, 10:04 PM, said:

I don't think it is that difficult to teach anyone the rule that:

- If in doubt alert.

Once i told this rule you mentioned to my pard who was unsure about when to alert.

She alerted a bid of mine that was not to be alerted, opps called TD and we got penalized.

If you meet an opp who wants to, he will insist to mmake you talk about bidding to grasp the slightest mistake and exploit it.

[the hog]

Mauro is quite correct. You can be penalised for alerting non alertable bids; it has happened to me as well. My present partner's command of English is not perfect and it is amazing how many try to exploit that fact as well.

[Cave_Draco]

Directors have tough job, try it ONCE.

I once psyched in a National tournament... the director was called... no time-out for filling in a psych form!
The psych was good but opps couldn't handle it, they went down in 5♦ when 4♠ was cold,

Anyone who takes on the job deserves our support.