[Elianna]

awm, on Nov 10 2006, 09:38 AM, said:

Wait a second, I thought the auction was the property of everyone at the table. Aren't you allowed to ask for a review of the bidding at any time during the play? In this case I can't imagine there being any issue with "memory aids" that help you remember the bidding.

You are allowed to ask for a review of the bidding until you play to the first trick. After that, you are only allowed to inquire as to the final contract, and whether it was doubled, but not by who.

Adam said:

In any case, writing something down and then discarding it doesn't serve as a memory aid. Yes the fact that you wrote it down might help you to remember, but then you could also recite the auction to yourself a couple times, or stare for five seconds at the final contract. This would also be a "memory aid" but the restriction is against specifically referring to something during bidding or play, not "doing something before the play starts" to help you remember the bidding.

Agreed. You are not allowed a physical memory aid. You ARE allowed a mental memory aid. That's why slogans are so popular among beginning bridge players, it helps them remember. But they wouldn't be allowed to bring it to the table in written.

[blackshoe]

I've been asked to expand a bit on the subjects of UI and AI.

Players may gain information from a number of different sources. For example, from the calls and plays made on a hand, or from mannerisms or remarks made by an opponent or by partner. Law 16 says that information obtained from the actual calls and plays is authorized to everybody. Information from mannerisms (I would include remarks here as well) is authorized to opponents of the player exhibiting the mannerism or making the comment, but not to his partner. All other information is extraneous. Extraneous information from your partner that may suggest a call or play is not authorized to you. Example "Damn. I should have passed originally." If it doesn't suggest a call or play, it's "authorized" (but you aren't gonna do anything bridge-wise with it, so who cares?) Example: "I'm gonna be a grandmother." If you have unauthorized information from partner, you must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it. In particular, given a set of logical alternative actions, you may not take one demonstrably suggested over another by UI, even if you have the same information from an authorized source. "I was always going to bid 4♠" is not justification for doing so in the presence of UI. The only justification for doing so is that AI makes the other possible action (e.g., pass) not a logical alternative.

Extraneous information from other sources - such as overhearing something from another table, or seeing cards from someone else's hand before the auction starts - is unauthorized if it may affect the result on a board. When you have this kind of information, call the director immediately and let him deal with it.

Calls or plays may be withdrawn in the course of dealing with an irregularity. Information from such withdrawn calls or plays is extraneous, but is authorized to the NOS, whether it came from their side or opponents, and unauthorized to the offending side, again whichever side it came from.

In the specific case that started this thread, opener bid 2♠, responder tanked (did 2nd seat take the mandatory ten second pause before passing?), an opponent started making comments about the presumed strength of responder's hand, responder finally raised, opener bid game, and opponents started grilling and lesson giving - not in a pleasant manner.

The first infraction here was quite possibly 2nd seat's failure to comply with the mandatory 10 second pause after a skip bid (whether or not the skip bid warning was given). If he did comply, the first infraction was the comment about responder's strength. Note that responder's hesitation is not in itself an infraction of law.

What UI is there in this case? First, opponent's comment regarding responder's strength is UI to his partner (opponent's, not responder's, partner). Responder's break in tempo (BIT) is not UI, but it may, by inference, convey UI. In particular, opener might infer, as the opponent implied, that responder had a good hand. Note that here we have AI from an opponent's comment, and UI from responder's BIT, that say the same thing. However, opener cannot take advantage of the UI, unless he has no logical alternative. IOW, if pass is an LA, and the information suggests 4♠, the latter is not permitted. The grilling and lesson giving may convey information about the hands; such information is UI to the defense and AI to the declarer - but note that inferences from comments and mannerisms of opponents are at one's own risk, unless an illegal deception was involved.

The grilling and lesson giving, indeed the opponents' attitude in general, is a violation of the proprieties which can (should, IMO) result in a penalty.

Regarding taking notes, memory aids, and UI: you may not refer to any aids to "memory, calculation, or technique" during the auction and play of a hand, with one specific exception: if SO regulations require an opponent to provide you with a written suggested defense to a call in their system, that defense is in effect considered a part of the opponents' convention card, and you may refer to it at your turn, just as you may refer to their CC. Note that they may not refer to it - it's UI to them. Your CC is UI to you (but you can refer to it between hands). I'm going to ease up, perhaps, on my earlier opinion and say that you can record the auction while the opening lead is being made, but may not refer to it during the play (you can ask for a review if you haven't played to the first trick). You cannot take notes on the auction during the auction, and then refer to them later in the auction or during the play.

You are permitted to ask to see all cards of the current trick until you turn yours over. Once you do that, you cannot ask to see the others' again, nor expose your own.

I hope I didn't miss anything.

[JoAnneM]

This is what really gripes me. I am a playing director at a local club. Today two people came up to be and complained about infractions that occurred - after the fact. One was a behavior issue. Well, you know there is not a darn thing I can do if you don't call me to the table at the time. One lady was mad because the opponent pointed to the vulnerability on the board during the bidding. That's a terrible thing to do, but why tell me four hands later during the next round!!!

Now, I can go to these people and do a "he said, she said" routine, but why not call me right now? These people need to be called on the carpet while they are doing this stuff. Let us directors do our jobs, then maybe there won't be so many posts about unfriendly games.

One bad player can scare as many as 10 players away from a small club. Getting rid of that player only loses one player. Do the math.

[jillybean]

Why wont players to call the TD?

From my very brief experience the impression I have is that calling the TD is a very unwelcome thing to do.. At our first tournament one lady would keep on leading out of turn, the mistake was quickly corrected and the play continued – my husband and I sat there a little bewildered. When I suggested we should call the TD our ops quickly said ‘these are the rules, this is what is done’. The next time it happened and I called the TD and the reaction I got from our ops would not encourage anyone to call the TD again.

It seems that people who know what they are doing (or atleast think they do) prefer to handle irregularities themselves and not bring attention to the matter. Law9B1 tells us that the Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity, this is obviously applied at a player’s discretion.

jb

[blackshoe]

There is a very experienced player here who used to make his own rulings when things went wrong at the table. This was, BTW, before I became a director. At first I said nothing, but as I became more familiar with the laws, and with the personalities of bridge players I realized what he was doing - using his perceived status as a player to intimidate lesser players. So the next time he tried it, I told him that it wasn't going to happen his way, and called the TD. Had to do it two or three more times, but he doesn't try that on with me anymore. He didn't like it much, either. Too bad.

Law 9B1 is applied at some player's discretion only when the other 3 players at the table let him get away with it. I won't. Not in a tournament, not in a club game. And I will not make rulings myself, even if everyone else at the table asks me to, and I'm sure I know what the ruling should be. When I'm playing, I'm a player, not the TD (well, there may be some times when I'm both, but I try to keep that to a minimum). IMO, it's not a player's job to make rulings at his table, even if he's Rick Beye (and I'm sure Rick doesn't do that) and doing so is unfair to everyone concerned.

I had a partner once who exclaimed, in a very hurt tone of voice "why did you call the TD on me?" I hadn't - I called the TD on me because she had given UI and I wasn't sure I had handled it properly. But she didn't (wouldn't?) understand that.

Joann: just a suggestion, but.. maybe at the next few games you should make an announcement before the first round that people should call you at the time of an infraction, and that bringing something up after the fact will result in a polite "thanks for the info" and nothing else.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Nov 10 2006, 06:41 PM, said:

I hope I didn't miss anything.

I dont think so, tyvm

[jillybean]

We played the Sat night game at the Vancouver sectional and finished 5th in section B with 45% and another 0.3 MP!
I dont really understand this as we should be in Section C with our grand total of about 3MP's.

Board8 was one of the bottom boards for us, 6♣ makes, 6N-1 how would you bid it?

1nt:2♣
2♦:4nt
6nt

---

[jillybean]

Board26 I competed to 3♠ here which may have been ok as opps had 5♣ but I misplayed it horribly and went 3♠X-3 for -800 and an absolute bottom board. This was getting towards the end of the game and loosing concentration.

P (p) 1♦ (X)
1♠ (2♣) 2♠ (2something)
3♠ (p) p (x) ap

---

-----------------

1 incident when we probably should have called the TD, part way through an auction one of our ops picks up her open convention card and places it on her lap, the CC is now in full view below her cards!
I mentioned that she couldnt refer to the CC during bidding and got the expected response, later on I looked over from another table and there she was with her CC still open on her lap.

jb

[badderzboy]

Calling the TD is seen as a faux pas by many but it is there to protect BOTH sides.

I've called the TD on myself to protect the opps before in a misbid auction my partners alert was correct and his pass correct in the system but I had misbid ( the joys of Modified Ghestem)!

The role of the TD is to be fair to everyone and also even if I know the TD ruling in advance for a mistake at my table (I'm a qualified English BU TD) - I would not presume to tells the opps u need to call the TD!

It is true some players get away with murder by saying u should do this blah blah blah amazing it would help them everytime lol

If I'm going to call the director I tend to say to the opps nothing personal but we need to call the TD just to make sure - leads out of turn, calls out of turn that sort of thing!

Steve

[Codo]

jillybean2, on Nov 12 2006, 04:40 PM, said:

We played the Sat night game at the Vancouver sectional and finished 5th in section B with 45% and another 0.3 MP!
I dont really understand this as we should be in Section C with our grand total of about 3MP's.

Board8 was one of the bottom boards for us, 6♣ makes, 6N-1 how would you bid it?

1nt:2♣
2♦:4nt
6nt

---

One possiblity to avoid 6 NT is NOT to jump to 6 NT but using the space instead to shwo a 5 card suit with 6 ♣ or 6 ♦.
But there are enough reasons to be in 6 NT in a pairs event.
You have 11 tricks and can hope for the Queen of spades doubelton king of Heart singelton or doubelton with West, Ten of Hearts singelton or doubelton or Hearts 3-3. Or that there is a squeeze in some suits. This is more then enough for 6 NT.

[Elianna]

jillybean2, on Nov 11 2006, 11:40 PM, said:

We played the Sat night game at the Vancouver sectional and finished 5th in section B with 45% and another 0.3 MP!
I dont really understand this as we should be in Section C with our grand total of about 3MP's.

Congratulations!

And 3 possible reasons why you got your placement in B:

1) They had only two divisions: A and B. This is not likely in an open game, but pretty likely in a small, limited game, where they didn't have enough people to round out the other divisions. However, since you got points for being 3rd in B, this sounds highly unlikely in your case.

2) Whenever you are placed in a category, you are automatically in the category above. So if you're in C, you're automatically in both B and A. If your placement in B was worth more points than your placement in C, then you get points on the first criteria.

3) A director mis-enterred your name/ACBL number. This has happened before (more often in club games, but also in tournaments), and I always check that it is MY name that appears in the recap sheet.

By far the most likely to have happened is #2.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Nov 12 2006, 02:40 AM, said:

We played the Sat night game at the Vancouver sectional and finished 5th in section B with 45% and another 0.3 MP!   
I dont really understand this as we should be in Section C with our grand total of about 3MP's. 

Board8 was one of the bottom boards for us, 6♣ makes, 6N-1 how would you bid it?

1nt:2♣
2♦:4nt
6nt

---

When a game is stratified, a pair can win in their stratum, or in any higher stratum. If you, as a C pair, do better than all the B pairs save one, and better than all the C pairs, you will get the better of the masterpoints for coming 2nd in B or the masterpoints for coming 1st in C. If all the A and B pairs do better (i.e., have a higher percentage of the matchpoints) than you, you still get masterpoints if you place high enough in stratum C (and there are enough pairs in that stratum that masterpoints will be awarded - I think the minimum is 5 pairs).

Elianna is right about the other two possibilities - including that they are very rare relative to this one. Also, stratification is arbitrary - the TD can place the limits wherever she likes, trying to give the best balance to the field.

If you're going to accept your partner's quantitative 4NT, nothing says you can't suggest another strain along the way. You could bid 6♣ over 4NT.

[jillybean]

Today I played in an intermediate 0-1500 MP game with another new partner, we had a very nice time and came 3rd in sectionA with 55.79% and another .something of an MP Im not sure how much this says about my ability rather than the standard of the competition.

I wish we had hand records, there were a couple of boards I’d like to review but have no hope of remembering them. Ive noticed that I do tend to play on blindly when PlanA fails and I do not stop to reconsider and make a new plan. Sad to say this isnt new. I am not reviewing the boards as we play and I have stopped taking notes on bidding, lead etc. This helped a lot with my concentration on the last few tables.

I did notice that we didn’t do so well after partner opened with a weak2 and we introduce a new suit with little tolerance for partner’s suit. We invariably played in 3x with a 6/1 fit Perhaps not surprising 1st time partnership and my undisciplined weak 2's.

jb

[blackshoe]

I would strongly recommend Anderson and Zenkel's Preempts from A to Z. Excellent book!

[jillybean]

Hubby and I played in an open pairs game at the club last night. The kiwi’s will get a chuckle here, this time we paid $10 (NZ$12.70) each to shuffle and deal our own cards, no hand records. The extra cost was due to it being a Canadian Open Pairs qualifier game.

I can’t remember anything spectacular about our bidding or play. We got a top board after I opened 1nt and our opps got into a bidding war and went 5♠X-3, Im happy to take these gifts when they are offered up. Generally I think we were simply out bid and out played, finishing with 46.06% and 2 places off qualifying.

I hope the clubs here will invest in a little technology to provide basic hand records for the games, if not perhaps we will see a mass migration of bridge players to NZ or BBO

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Do you really want to be in a NT slam with 31HCP 'plus' a holding of AQ and AK in your doubleton major suits?

A lot of HCP in short suits tend to reduce your trick taking total. A spade 'hook' is just not possible with that 'AK' holding.

If you are going to bid a minor slam with these cards, there are an assortment of methods.

You could accept the slam try of 4NT by jumping to 6C as a 'possible' contract, however, only 'after discussing it' with partner.

If you do not have a decent five card suit to jump to slam in, you might use 5NT as pick a contract, to discover your 4-4 minor fits.

I use 1NT-3H* as CONFIT(control/fit asking bid)-3NT*(five controls, A=2 and K=1)-4C(Hxxx+ suit)-6C(HHxx+ jump raises)

Some pairs play 1NT-2C-2Y-4NT-'if' you accept you can show suits bidding them 'up the line.' Be sure and discuss this with partner first because some pairs accept the slam try by making a BW reply(just to avoid slams missing 'two cashing'
Aces)

Congrats on your 55.79% game in a 0-1,500 field. Shows promise.

When you are dummy, perhaps that would be a good time to take some notes on the hands. If both you and your partner do that, at least one of your partnership would be writing down the hand to discusss later and maybe also make notes about the bidding.

board 26. You missed somethng in the bidding. After partner raised to 2S, the other pairs' only possible bid at the two level would be an unlikely 2NT(unless they were playing Good/Bad 2NT* and that would require an alert)

Bidding three over three is often 'not' recommended 'without' good reason. You might have suspected a bad trump break due to the takeout double by RHO. You held a weak hand with a very weak 5 card suit. You also did have quite a few losers.

If you get a chance, you might want to try 'support doubles' to 'show' a three card raise. Your partner could have made a support double over the 2C bid. That bid might very well cause you to avoid making that 3S bid.

A side bonus of playing support doubles is that you may freely bid to the three level 'knowing' that partner is showing four card support for a raise. A 'known' 5-4 fit is often reason to bid three over three.

When you play weak two bids, you should not bid poor six card suit in reply to a weak two opening. Most pairs play RONF(raise only non force) so a new suit should be forcing. I happen to play a non standard 'new suit non forcing', however, it does show a good suit 'plus' a fairly strong hand.

Best regards,
Robert

[pigpenz]

jillybean2, on Nov 12 2006, 02:40 AM, said:

We played the Sat night game at the Vancouver sectional and finished 5th in section B with 45% and another 0.3 MP!
I dont really understand this as we should be in Section C with our grand total of about 3MP's.

Board8 was one of the bottom boards for us, 6♣ makes, 6N-1 how would you bid it?

1nt:2♣
2♦:4nt
6nt

---

were you playing with Pickett?

[jillybean]

Today hubby and I played in an open stratified game. We had a good time, the people were very nice and we got a good result 3rd with 51.62% in section B.

We are learning by trial and error what to alert or announce, you are expected to announce your 1nt range but not 2nt, our ops expected us to alert 2♣ but not the 2♦ (waiting) response - I’ll have to read up on r/l alerts and announcements.

We arrived too late to get an EW seat and so I ended up sitting North and scoring for the first time. I needed to call the director once when I realized the boards I’d just passed on had the score in the wrong row other than that it went ok, people were happy to help when they saw me fumbling with the scores.

What went well today was our aggressive 3rd seat openings, not so well was we failed to get over tricks when we lost count of the spots and forgot to play winners. The bidding went well up until the last board my lho reempted 3♠ Bill bid 4♦ and I went to 5 with a poor 9 count a 3 ♦'s.5Dx-3 for a complete bottom. My excuse 'I thought it was forcing' I’ll have to get that book.

[mycroft]

Kathryn, I believe you are in ACBL territory. In which case, the alert chart is at:

http://www.acbl.org/...procedures.html

Please note that this document will bend your brain. There are two extremes of "what to Alert" - one is "Alert what is not natural" and the other is "Alert what is not Standard." I won't get into the argument over what is best (and it's a long argument with many valid points on both sides, plus useful middle-roads), but the ACBL has decided to go very strongly toward "Alert what is not Standard." Which has three problems for new players:

- You need to know about Expert Standard. Responsive Doubles, 2C rebids on xx with 4=5=2=2 after 1H-1NT forcing, *ANY* responses to 4NT ace-asking, and the like are not Alertable, and you have to know this, even if you don't play it.
- In some situations there are two "standard" ways of playing a call, and neither are Alertable (the classic being 1NT-2x-double, if it's penalty or takeout, it isn't Alertable). You have to know when to ask.
- The Alert Procedure will bend your brain :-) (Please note, it bends everybody's brain, including tournament Directors and members of the Competitions and Conventions committee (who wrote it)).

I would suggest reading from the beginning to Types of Alerts - in particular, the Announcement section and the Failure to Alert or Announce section - and ignore the rest, unless you're actively checking something you're playing. You'll see (as you probably already have) that you have some protection from sharks, but it is still your responsibility to know what is Alertable in your system. Oh, possibly skim the Conventions section - "Almost all conventions must be Alerted, and here are the exceptions".

However, if you are playing Standard, with 2C Strong, Artificial and Forcing, despite what your opponents believe, it is not Alertable in the ACBL. Also (and many every-day ACBL players do not know this), 2D in response to the artificial strong 2C is not Alertable *unless it promises values* (i.e. 2H is the immediate bust hand) or it means something other than "negative or waiting".

Most people are going to try to help. Some are going to play the rules as an intimidation tactic (knowingly or not). Find one person who knows what's going on (I'd like to recommend the TD, but it does depend on your club) and ask her, double-check with the printed Procedure if necessary, and ignore everybody else (including me, but not the TD, not during her game, at least) when they tell you something's Alertable or not. And if the opponents feel they have been damaged, but choose to take their damage out in berating you instead of calling the TD and getting a ruling, call the TD yourself, and get a ruling - and do it before you get upset and blow the rest of the round. Who knows, they might be wrong - and if they're right, at least you'll know why.

And frequently the ruling will be "there was Misinformation, you should have Alerted it, but there was no damage, so no adjustment. Thank you for calling."

Michael.

[FrancesHinden]

I can't give you advice on the ACBL alerting regs, but I would say the following:

- Don't be afraid to ask the opponents what their bids mean. If they're having an uncontested auction you can wait until the end (to avoid it getting very slow with a question after every bid) and just say "please can you explain the auction".

- It will rarely matter if you alert something that shouldn't have been alerted. So if you aren't sure, alert it. In general terms that will cover pretty most things where the bid doesn't mean what it sounds like (some of these aren't alertable in the ACBL, but as I said it probably won't hurt).

- Most people don't know the alerting rules anyway. I have played once in an ACBL club game (in Toronto). Because I'm i) sad, ii) had a long boring plane journey and iii) am interested in rules, I read them up in a fair amount of detail before we played and learnt all about pre-alerts, post-alerts, announcements.... I can say with some certainty that I knew more about the rules than anyone we played that evening!