[mgoetze]

mycroft, on Aug 31 2005, 07:16 PM, said:

2) I agree, with another Canadian I have never met, to play "2/1". That's our entire discussion. The auction goes 1D-1S; 1NT-2C. I know it's NMF, I am bidding 2C in full expectation that it will be taken as NMF, but I get to say "no agreement", because all we discussed was "2/1"? Yeah, right. Okay, I'm banking on "general experience" to know that anyone who plays 2/1 plays a certain set of conventions to fill the holes, and NMF is one of them, but if my opponents are from Bangladesh, *they* don't know that - it isn't "general bridge knowledge" to them.

Really? I was quite sure that this is obviously the XYZ convention - weak with diamonds or else some kind of invitational hand. But then again I have only played 2/1 with one partner.

[Blofeld]

A slightly related case:

There have been times, playing with a pickup partner, where I may a bid, seeing more than one possible interpretation for a bid, but knowing that my hand fits (or nearly fits) either [or occasionally any of more than two] one. In this case, I really don't feel that I can say anything other than "undiscussed". I can't pick one of the options, because that effectively misinforms the opponents if my partner thinks it's the other option, and to tell my opponents that I have a hand fitting both options is surely giving them far more information than they're entitled to. Or perhaps whenever there's more than one possible meaning for a bid that I've made, and partner and I haven't discussed it, I should say "a hand fitting one or more of ... [option a], [option b], ..." ?

[candybar]

jillybean2, on Sep 1 2005, 08:52 AM, said:

I have seen 'No psyche in 1st or 2nd position' in a few tournament rules does this reflect an actual bridge law (its not in the WBF regulations) or is it something TD's are doing to keep players happy?

It is NOT an actual bridge law. It's something that TDs are doing to make decent players angry.

The only people who could possibly be happy about these homegrown 'rules' are (1) TDs who are too lazy to deal with the occasional psyche, and (2) extremely weak players who haven't the slightest idea they've been psyched until it's way too late.

[Al_U_Card]

Everytime I play, I select a pard who shows 2/1 somewhere in his profile, or if desperate, expert. The 2nd thing I type (after "Hi all") is, "I have just posted my 2/1 cc p".
It is mostly generic with all of the treatments and conventions that I like to play. As with this morning, on our 2nd hand played, I open 1S in 4th seat and pard answers 2C. I continue with 2NT(a good hand with stoppers outside). Pard raises to 3NT with Qx,xxx,Kx,QJTxxx. He wasn't asked, nor was I, but the card clearly shows 2-way rev. Drury. I was expecting a limit with 3 card support. Pass or 3C by him would have been improper? btw he never explicitly said "cc looks fine" or other comment implying acceptance of my cc. Needless to say that partnership didn't last too long, but the opps enjoyed its Impish effect while it lasted

[candybar]

Winstonm, on Sep 1 2005, 11:00 AM, said:

I give her praise for not a ruling, but for having the guts to enforce her own self-imposed zero tolerance policy.  To me, it takes guts to mean what you say and  back it up with action.

You are praising someone for (1) not understanding the Laws, (2) booting someone for an honest answer, and (3) being gutsy enough to do all this without a qualm of conscience?

If you take this approach to the natural extreme, it means that anyone can do anything they want, as long as they are 'gutsy' about it.

Backing up "her own self-imposed zero tolerance policy" does not make the policy correct, legal, or moral -- it merely makes it imposed.

[Al_U_Card]

[quote name='mgoetze' date='Sep 1 2005, 09:28 AM'] [quote name='mycroft' date='Aug 31 2005, 07:16 PM'] 2) I agree, with another Canadian I have never met, to play "2/1". That's our entire discussion. The auction goes 1D-1S; 1NT-2C. I know
Really? I was quite sure that this is obviously the XYZ convention - weak with diamonds or else some kind of invitational hand. But then again I have only played 2/1 with one partner. [/quote]
Any votes for natural with clubs and showing 5+ spades and at least invitational strength?

[kense]

candybar, on Sep 1 2005, 01:42 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 1 2005, 11:00 AM, said:

I give her praise for not a ruling, but for having the guts to enforce her own self-imposed zero tolerance policy.  To me, it takes guts to mean what you say and  back it up with action.

You are praising someone for (1) not understanding the Laws, (2) booting someone for an honest answer, and (3) being gutsy enough to do all this without a qualm of conscience?

If you take this approach to the natural extreme, it means that anyone can do anything they want, as long as they are 'gutsy' about it.

Backing up "her own self-imposed zero tolerance policy" does not make the policy correct, legal, or moral -- it merely makes it imposed.

I have seen many bad rules made in the abalucy bridge club

[uday: remainder of rant removed ]

[inquiry]

Let me issue a warning as a system admistrator. Please be sure to keep comments on topic and don't insult people.

Ok, so far we have Abalucy directors are great, and abalucy directors don't know the rules of bridge. As long as we are talking factual info like failure to alert in the club results in a two trick penalty, fine and dandy. That is black and white (assuming it is true).

But a point of order. The BBO policy is that TD's (and private club) can set their own rules. This includes, for instatnce, that no BLACKWOOD is allowed, or that you can't open 1NT, or that takeout doubles can not be used. Some here say the game is not bridge if you do this (and I would agree), but so what? As long as people know what the rules are they can CHOOSE to play or CHOOSE not to play. We have enough directors and clubs that everyone will have lots and lots of other options. Oh, and abalucy tourneys are still fairly large, They did switch from a free to you have to pay to be a member, that is what caused the reduction of size, when people have to pay, some choose not too.. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the rulings in the event. For the most part, members of abalucy are very happy (like winstonm) is with the way it is run.

[uday]

Thread warning. Another rant (some topics tend to provoke rants) and I will erase the thread.

[Clinch]

Winstonm, on Aug 30 2005, 12:01 PM, said:

The point that the CC might not have been changed is invalid - it was the non-sub who opened an ACOL 2H when the CC said weak.  Possibly a forget?  Sure.  But his sub parnter bid the hand as if his partner had opened an ACOL 2-bid.  More good guesses.  No doubt that could be.

Next hand.  "Sub" opens 2N.  Partner doubles.  I ask for a clarifiction of range of 2N.  Silence.  I ask again because I'm aware the CC may not be correct.  Silence again.  I called the TD as this may have been a language barrier but if "sub" did have an understanding I had the right to know what this was.

TD arrived and asked, "What is 2N?"  No response again.  Language problem?  Sure, it could have been.  TD asked again.  "Explain the meaning of 2N."

Finally an answer: "I'm a sub." 

From TD.  "Not good enough."

Sub: "Undiscussed."

I wasn't there, I haven't played in this club. That being said....

1. If we don't see the exact hands for the first alleged transgression, nobody can sensibly opine on whether the 3NT bid was a sensible gamble, or a piece of lunacy.

2. I don't think it makes any sense for the director to be called following partner's double of 2NT on the second hand. It reads to me as though the person who is calling is trying to find out what his partner's double means.

3. Answering a call of mercy to sit in as a substitute, and being lifetime banned within a few minutes of sitting down must be something of a record.

4. How can any of this be a cause for a "bravo" to be issued to anyone?

Still, it was amusing to read.

Peter.
New York, NY.

[1eyedjack]

Clinch, on Sep 5 2005, 11:03 PM, said:

I wasn't there, I haven't played in this club. That being said....

1. If we don't see the exact hands for the first alleged transgression, nobody can sensibly opine on whether the 3NT bid was a sensible gamble, or a piece of lunacy.

Just a small point ...

The exact hands are readily available for anybody with the curiosity to do the research.

It was lunacy opposite a weak 2H (IMO). Something of an underbid opposite a strong 2H, that worked out OK. But it seems likely they were playing strong 2s by agreement and South had forgotten to change the CC following the introduction of the sub. Not an uncommon occurrence I fear, although whether any damage resulted in this case is not for me to say. I gather from the hand record and partial evidence in this thread that there was no sanction imposed against the 3N bidder. Sub No. 1 was subbed out during that hand, and it was the next sub who was disk-ed, for the subsequent "transgression".

[arrows]

(uday: deleted)

[candybar]

inquiry, on Sep 2 2005, 12:18 PM, said:

They did switch from a free to you have to pay to be a member, that is what caused the reduction of size, when people have to pay, some choose not too.. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the rulings in the event.

I DID pay, but I won't again, and for the record, it has EVERYTHING to do with the quality of the rulings in the event.