[Ranmit]

A somewhat funny situation at the club game this week. The bidding goes 1C - P - 1H - P - 1NT (alerted).

When asked the meaning of 1NT, responder said that it was new minor forcing. After a slight pause she said "No sorry! That bid is natural, my response is going to be new minor forcing." She then bids 2D and asks her partner to alert it as such.

It was just a club game so we laughed it off, but I wonder what the penalty for such a statement would be (ie, explaining the meaning of your own bid to partner), if the opponents decided to call the director?

[jillybean]

Ranmit, on 2025-March-15, 09:21, said:

It was just a club game so we laughed it off,

And here it starts.

I that doubt any Director would penalize this, education is needed.

[Cyberyeti]

Would you penalise this from a club here, unopposed:

2N-3♥-4♥-4♠ "it was a transfer damnit" -P

[jillybean]

How long has the pair been playing?

[mycroft]

Do you penalize the people who tap their 1NT card when partner doesn't Announce?
Or 2♥ after partner's 1NT?
More dubiously, what about the person who Announces (instead of Alerts) partner's Flannery bid? or NMF for that matter?
More yet, the one that Announces partner's 4NT as "1430"?
Or taps their Bergen Raise to make sure it is Alerted (surely only "partner forgot to Alert", not "partner didn't remember it isn't clubs")?

This is difficult and one of the reasons self-Alerting online, or screen play live, is better. Of course, the opposite problem (self-Alerting, the opponents get mixed messages from the alerts - so what *is* their system?; for screens, "different explanations on each side of the screen", whether it's "differently phrased but the same explanation, but understood differently", or "yeah, they were on two different pages") is much less common, but much worse...

I think after responder's gaffe over 1NT, the cat's out of the bag. "I'm about to bid NMF, partner"; and anything else they do is just gilding the lily. So I wouldn't be too hard on the player for going above and beyond in their bad explanations. Unless, of course, they always tell their partner what their bid means; in which case, yeah, sure.

Legit as director? It's UI, but what are you going to do? Surely you can't rule "without partner waking you up here, you would have forgotten your system and passed", can you (at least, absent evidence of a forget, say last round)?

Education. Ensure that responder knows what they should and shouldn't do; explain how in other situations it could restrict partner; and if they're not careful, they will get penalties for this (and I'll be listening for it).

These sorts of issues are where I wish I was back in the Martinique; because I would be suggesting the $3 penalty ("I'm sure partner would have got it right. But you should probably offer to buy them a drink for the trouble.")

[Ranmit]

jillybean, on 2025-March-15, 10:20, said:

And here it starts.

I that doubt any Director would penalize this, education is needed.

Oh I wasnt the director - I was one of the opponents. I didnt feel it was my place to educate - though I think she realized it afterwards.
The pair have been playing for ~ a year I think.

I get the broader point I think - this cannot be penalized unless the pair repeats it frequently (As Mycroft said: you can't rule "without partner waking you up here, you would have forgotten your system and passed"). Though it gives some leeway to potentially unethical players to 'accidentally' remind their partners. (Or maybe I have just read too many Charlie Chimp stories on this forum!)

Thanks!

[Zelandakh]

A normal TD response would be to issue a warning on the first offence and a penalty (typically 3 IMPs or Ave-) for subsequent incidents. Frequent abuse should lead to more serious disciplinary actions.

[jillybean]

Nothing more than a warning, tut tut, would be given in an ACBL game. Penalties are extremely rare.

[barmar]

This whole thing sounds like a kind of senior moment. She got confused and then flustered, and misspoke as a result. I doubt there was any intent to break the rules about alerts and explanations.

These things always remind me of an incident years ago when I was playing with a pick-up partner at an NABC when I was a C player. Partner alerted a bid of mine and explained it as some convention I'd never even heard of. I was caught totally off-guard and blurted out "What!?".

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2025-March-26, 10:10, said:

This whole thing sounds like a kind of senior moment. She got confused and then flustered, and misspoke as a result. I doubt there was any intent to break the rules about alerts and explanations.

These things always remind me of an incident years ago when I was playing with a pick-up partner at an NABC when I was a C player. Partner alerted a bid of mine and explained it as some convention I'd never even heard of. I was caught totally off-guard and blurted out "What!?".

Nothing more human.
But you are still all subject to the Laws.

Today I mentored a beginner in our low level tournament, against us a pair played 3NT+4 after an auction something like:
1♦ - 1♥
2♠ - 3NT
P
"You knew I was strong, I bid STOP 2♠!"
I could only laugh to myself, but they won the tournament: what did my partner learn?

[akwoo]

Surely you have played a club game where one opponent is in the early stages of dementia. Allowing their partner to remind them what bids mean so that they can have a reassonable game seems like a reasonable accommodation.

[jillybean]

Or alternatively, simplifying the card

[mycroft]

I played for a couple of months with a friend's father after his stroke. I played "for free" (perk of being a director at the club), so all it cost me was time - and at the time, I had nothing *but* time.

He wasn't a great player, but decent flight B. For say 18 boards of 27. The other ones - well, for maybe three tricks, he was doing well if he remembered what bridge was, never mind the contract or what hand he was in.

We had our consistent 45%s, our opponents dealt with the confusion, and my help with the confusion, quietly and with class. Maybe one or two director calls over the quarter over this, rather than actual problems like revokes and such.

And a player, who was clearly dying and impaired, was able to do something he loved, that had been taken away from him (at least he thought) by random medical issues, for another three months at least.

I'm not tooting my own horn - I know many who would have, and indeed in some cases have, done the same. I am tooting the horn of the club and bridge players in general. It's a club game, it's not the finals of the LM Pairs. I expect people who are capable of following the rules - especially where not following the rules causes problems, and double especially if they are sticklers for others following their pet rules themselves - to do so. But the odd lapse from people who clearly aren't playing games (except bridge), either just don't know, or have a braino, or ...? Especially when it's (reasonably) clear that partner got it without? "Please be careful about this in future. Continue."

[jillybean]

With the aging bridge population, this is a common challenge. I see some players retire from "duplicate bridge" to play social bridge, others play on and we do what we can to accommodate them.
This is nothing to do with the Laws. Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between age/illness related errors and ignorance/laziness.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-March-29, 09:45, said:

This is nothing to do with the Laws. Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between age/illness related errors and ignorance/laziness.

There is also a third category, which includes my pair who forgot the agreement about use of the Stop card, that fast improving pair who like to explain each other's slam seeking bids without being requested and (quite possibly) the OP reminder about the next bid being NMF.
But yes, we can all tell the difference.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-March-28, 19:30, said:

Or alternatively, simplifying the card

Frequently that doesn't help. The player with fading memory is used to the conventions they are used to playing, and discarding them causes even more confusion.

Just because someone has trouble remembering they're playing transfers doesn't mean that they have any idea how to bid without transfers. Most likely they're just confused.

[pescetom]

akwoo, on 2025-March-29, 16:03, said:

Frequently that doesn't help. The player with fading memory is used to the conventions they are used to playing, and discarding them causes even more confusion.

Just because someone has trouble remembering they're playing transfers doesn't mean that they have any idea how to bid without transfers. Most likely they're just confused.

I have the utmost sympathy with any player suffering from a mental impediment.
I play regularly with a partner who suffered a devastating stroke and has severe problems in talking, so I am familiar with the issues.
I agree that as a community we should continue to offer inclusion to everyone who wants to continue to play and that the Laws and Scores are a secondary matter.
But reverting to simpler agreements has to help a player with fading memory to perform, even if he understandably resents the fact that it is necessary.
If he really cannot imagine how to bid without conventions he is no longer capable of playing then I think it is time to think of other ways to help him.

[jillybean]

It's interesting how the brain works and what functions are lost, and what the human body can repair when there has been an injury, disease, and the decline in advanced aged. I suffered a head injury from a motorcycle accident in my 20's and so have first hand experience of the process and timeline of the brain's neuroplasticity.
(yeah, before there are any jokes, some would disagree on the extent of my neuroplasticity).
My life and bridge partner is affected with Alzheimer's disease. We have simplified our card over the last several years, no more modified J2nt, weak nt and 2 way stayman and my other pet treatments. Our card is very basic which he manages well, along with the play of the hand. I'm noticing now that his play of the hand is declining, that long term memory which in his case, is last to be effected.
As the disease progress, he takes a glimpse at our CC, and frequently asks what contract he is in. Our opponents are aware of his condition and graciously accommodate us.