[paulg]

dan_ehh, on 2011-April-07, 05:44, said:

Barmar,

I don't know what is your definition of "well known", but I assure you that many LOLs in the club will never expect this bidding sequence:
1NT-Pass-2♣-Pass-2♦/2♥/2♠-Pass-Pass?!?
(But stayman promises at least 8 points, doesn't it?)

This does highlight how different bridge can be around the world even on the simplest of auctions. In the UK I would expect to find that every LOL in the club had passed a Stayman response recently.

[NickRW]

Antrax, on 2011-April-07, 05:13, said:

"I don't know" isn't very helpful though - obviously I'm going to assume something about the bid, don't the opponents get to know what it is? (granted, usually I assume it's natural, and when it couldn't be I just shut my eyes and repeat my suit, but still)

If "I don't know" or "no agreement" is the truth, then, whether it is helpful or not, it is the only answer your opponents are entitled to from you. Saying what you think it means or how you're going to interpret it, far from being helpful, is giving UI to your partner.

Opponents are entitled to know anything they care to ask about your agreements pertinent to the auction in question, including any negative inferences that may be available by partner's failure to use other options. But that is the limit of what they are entitled to know. In other words they are entitled to know what you know about the agreement, nothing else.

If you know that a bid is artificial or has some unexpected meaning, but have forgotten the agreement, then you alert or announce as appropriate, and if the opponents ask you say "I don't know", they are entitled to have the explanation from partner with you away from the table. But even in this case they are only entitled to know the agreement, not whether partner may have psyched or deviated or any other "helpful" comment. And, indeed, if it is, say, obviously forcing, but an undiscussed sequence that has never come up, all they are entitled to from partner under these circumstances is a further "no agreement".

Nick

[Antrax]

I play in Avivim. The club is not the problem, I just go to the beginners' competitions where the players are very lax, probably because their understanding of the rules is about as firm as my own
Thanks all.

[blackshoe]

Antrax, on 2011-April-07, 02:58, said:

I'm not entirely sure I understand how time limits work in Bridge tournaments.

You will hear "bridge is a timed event", and so it is — up to a point. The laws specify that the round ends for a table when the director signals the move, except that if a board is still in progress at some table(s), the round does not end for those tables until the players move (after the board is finished). There are no specific time limits in the laws, other than this. There is guidance, which may be enshrined in regulation in some places, that players should have usually approximately 7.5 minutes to complete a board, but generally this is guidance only, not a hard and fast rule (although some players and some TDs treat it as such).

[Quantumcat]

Antrax, on 2011-April-07, 05:13, said:

"I don't know" isn't very helpful though - obviously I'm going to assume something about the bid, don't the opponents get to know what it is? (granted, usually I assume it's natural, and when it couldn't be I just shut my eyes and repeat my suit, but still)

The opponents might not like it, but you are required to say so if you don't think you have an agreement about the bid. The reason is, if you state what you are going to interpret it as, that will be telling your partner what you think it is. If the opponents start pressuring you to tell them what it means, call a director. He will be on your side and will tell them to lay off you!

Also, it might be good to learn which bids are "self-alerting". You shouldn't ever get into trouble for alerting too much, but at least you can relax knowing no matter what it means you don't need to alert it. These bids include bids of the opponent's suit, all doubles, 2♣ after a 1NT opening, and a 2♣ opening bid. There are probably others.

dan_ehh, on 2011-April-07, 05:44, said:

Quantumcat,

I suggest reading and inquiring more before making such uninformed comments and observations.
Additionally, I suggest improving your forum etiquette.

Lastly, I think your signature is brilliant.

I thought it was an April fool's joke to start with. I apologise for being rude. But if those really are the regulations, I don't know how Israel could possibly host an international tournament? There must be a hundred conflicts with international bridge rules.

Thanks for the compliment. If you ever play in an Australian national you might see two ex-youth bridge plyers wandering around with it emblazoned on their t-shirts :-) (actually they thought of it independently).

Quote

Antrax,
Time is limited in Bridge. If you need to play two boards in 15 minutes, and declarer takes 10 minutes before he plays from dummy after the opening lead on the first board, something is not right here. Commenting is not ideal, but what else can you do?

In a club game, the director would stop you from starting a board if there are only a certain number of minutes left, and he should decide which pair is at fault, then award a 60% score to the non-offending side and a 40% score to the offending side (or different proportions depending how he feels).
In a teams game, the director shouldn't let them play any boards when there is only a certain number of minutes left, and they are not counted in the score. The offending side will be fined some IMPs (the number per board should be decided on before the first match and published, so the director isn't being unfair to someone who didn't know there would be a fine for slow play).
There isn't any need to comment on slow play or to try to hurry people up, because if they cause you to not be able to play a board, you won't be damaged by it. And because you won't be damaged, trying to hurry people up will only upset them and won't cause any benefit to you, so you shouldn't do it.

[Vampyr]

Quantumcat, on 2011-April-07, 19:56, said:

Also, it might be good to learn which bids are "self-alerting". You shouldn't ever get into trouble for alerting too much, but at least you can relax knowing no matter what it means you don't need to alert it. These bids include bids of the opponent's suit, all doubles, 2♣ after a 1NT opening, and a 2♣ opening bid. There are probably others.

Where did you get this info? I have been trying to get into the English section of the Israeli Bridge Federation website but without success.


Wait, it said in an earlier post that Stayman is announceable in Israel. So I think that your source for the above information may not be reliable.

This post has been edited by Vampyr: 2011-April-07, 23:08

[Antrax]

Which side is the offending side when time runs out? More importantly, what happens when the partnerships disagree about this? (not out of malice, time just goes by faster for someone deep in thought)

[dan_ehh]

Antrax, on 2011-April-08, 01:01, said:

Which side is the offending side when time runs out? More importantly, what happens when the partnerships disagree about this? (not out of malice, time just goes by faster for someone deep in thought)

Then you have an argument and the director has to decide... when I have to decide, I usually don't choose, and leave them both at a=. You can call the director in the middle of the board and tell him that "this guy is taking WAYYYYY too long to play" and then he may observe and agree with you (or not) at the end.



Quantumcat,
I'm glad you apologized, however you are doing the same thing again. What you wrote is blatantly wrong and misleading.
Alert regulations change from country to country, and since you are obviously not Israeli, you shouldn't comment on what you don't know to be true.
For example, cuebids are alertable in Israel, and a 2♣ opening is an announcement.
Doubles are not alertable (under any condition), but I am certain this is different in other jurisdictions.

[the hog]

dan_ehh, on 2011-April-08, 01:46, said:

Then you have an argument and the director has to decide... when I have to decide, I usually don't choose, and leave them both at a=. You can call the director in the middle of the board and tell him that "this guy is taking WAYYYYY too long to play" and then he may observe and agree with you (or not) at the end.



Quantumcat,
I'm glad you apologized, however you are doing the same thing again. What you wrote is blatantly wrong and misleading.
Alert regulations change from country to country, and since you are obviously not Israeli, you shouldn't comment on what you don't know to be true.
For example, cuebids are alertable in Israel, and a 2♣ opening is an announcement.
Doubles are not alertable (under any condition), but I am certain this is different in other jurisdictions.

Well I agree with the "QCat". To announce the name of your convention eg "Stayman", is indeed ridiculous imo as well.

[barmar]

the hog, on 2011-April-08, 22:58, said:

Well I agree with the "QCat". To announce the name of your convention eg "Stayman", is indeed ridiculous imo as well.

Why? What's the difference between that and the ACBL requirement to announce Jacoby and Texas transfers (I think EBU adopted this a few years ago, too)? Or do you think ALL announcements are ridiculous.

Announcements are a compromise. Before the announcement procedure was created, these bids were alerted. But these conventions are so common that everyone just assumed that this was what the opponents were using, and no one would ever ask for an explanation. But if a pair was using a different convention, the opponents wouldn't find out.

ACBL first tried "special alert". You would say "alert" if you were using the common convention, and "special alert" if you were using something really unusual. But this didn't catch on. They replaced it with announcements, which have worked very well.

Announcements are only used for conventions that almost everyone plays, or for some very common treatments (forcing NT, short minors). They're very unlikely to cause UI problems between the partners, and simply confirm to the opponents that the bid means what they expect. If someone alerts one of these bids, they know that an unusual convention is being used, so they should ask for an explanation.

[NickRW]

the hog, on 2011-April-08, 22:58, said:

Well I agree with the "QCat". To announce the name of your convention eg "Stayman", is indeed ridiculous imo as well.

barmar, on 2011-April-08, 23:59, said:

Why? What's the difference between that and the ACBL requirement to announce Jacoby and Texas transfers (I think EBU adopted this a few years ago, too)?

It is "ridiculous" to announce, say, "Stayman", when elsewhere in most regulations it seems that the authorities want us to NOT use the names of conventions but say what the bid actually shows.

Of course, saying the name of something as well known and widely played as Stayman is the more pragmatic solution.

Nick

[Vampyr]

the hog, on 2011-April-08, 22:58, said:

Well I agree with the "QCat". To announce the name of your convention eg "Stayman", is indeed ridiculous imo as well.

Do you also agree with picking a set of alert regulations seemingly at random and deciding that they are somehow relevant to the OP's jurisdiction?

[Quantumcat]

I'm glad there are some people that see the absurdity of announcing what you are playing. The point of bidding is communicating through the codes of your bids, not through any other means.

Here are some quotes from the Laws of Contract Bridge:

Law 73 A 1: Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves.

Law 73 B 1: Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

Law 73 F 1: if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (i.e. if you have to announce everything you play, there are going to be a LOT of adjusted scores when the explanations may be wrong)

Law 74 B 2: making gratuitous comments during the auction and play.

[Vampyr]

g

Quantumcat, on 2011-April-10, 19:16, said:

I'm glad there are some people that see the absurdity of announcing what you are playing. The point of bidding is communicating through the codes of your bids, not through any other means.

This is true in theory, but in actual practice it is an ideal that is impossible to achieve without screens. Yes, you could eliminate alerts, but the opponents are entitled to a full description of a partnership's agreements, should they request one.

[barmar]

NickRW, on 2011-April-09, 09:00, said:

It is "ridiculous" to announce, say, "Stayman", when elsewhere in most regulations it seems that the authorities want us to NOT use the names of conventions but say what the bid actually shows.

Of course, saying the name of something as well known and widely played as Stayman is the more pragmatic solution.

Nick

When EXPLAINING bids you shouldn't just give the name of the convention. But announcements are not explanations. Announcements are used when you're using a common convention that everyone understands. In ACBL we announce Jacoby/Texas Transfers, Forcing NT, and Short Club (Stayman is so common that we don't alert or announce it at all). Other jurisdictions announce some other common conventions.

Announcements are supposed to be short -- it would be inappropriate to describe the meaning as part of an announcement. If an opponent does need an explanation, they can always ask.

[barmar]

Quantumcat, on 2011-April-10, 19:16, said:

I'm glad there are some people that see the absurdity of announcing what you are playing. The point of bidding is communicating through the codes of your bids, not through any other means.

Here are some quotes from the Laws of Contract Bridge:

Law 73 A 1: Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves.

Law 73 B 1: Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

Announcements don't violate this. Announcements are for the benefit of opponents, not partners. Yes, you can hear them (unless you're playing with screens or online), but you're supposed to ignore partner's announcements, alerts, and explanations. That's the point of Law 73F1, to handle cases where you don't ignore them.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2011-April-10, 22:25, said:

Announcements don't violate this.

Indeed even if they did so do alerts and I am sure everyone agrees that alerts are part of the game.

[Antrax]

A new question came up - do you ever give an alert for pass? Last night we had the following auction:
1NT-(X)-P
Partner's pass of a penalty double to 1NT requests opener to redouble, at which point he passes for penalties or we look for a fit etc. Is that alertable?
What about the following situation:
1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)
Double now would show 3-card support for hearts. Is a pass in this situation alertable? (since partner now knows I don't have 3 hearts)

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-April-10, 22:17, said:

When EXPLAINING bids you shouldn't just give the name of the convention. But announcements are not explanations. Announcements are used when you're using a common convention that everyone understands. In ACBL we announce Jacoby/Texas Transfers, Forcing NT, and Short Club (Stayman is so common that we don't alert or announce it at all). Other jurisdictions announce some other common conventions.

Announcements are supposed to be short -- it would be inappropriate to describe the meaning as part of an announcement. If an opponent does need an explanation, they can always ask.

You left out short diamonds.

[Vampyr]

Antrax, on 2011-April-10, 23:04, said:

A new question came up - do you ever give an alert for pass? Last night we had the following auction:
1NT-(X)-P
Partner's pass of a penalty double to 1NT requests opener to redouble, at which point he passes for penalties or we look for a fit etc. Is that alertable?

I don't think that many forum members are familiar with the alert regulations in your NBO. This pass, though, is probably alertable everywhere.

Quote

What about the following situation:
1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)
Double now would show 3-card support for hearts. Is a pass in this situation alertable? (since partner now knows I don't have 3 hearts)

Without specific knowledge of the local regulations, I would alert.