Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Marion Gebhardt
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South explained before the lead that she thought she was showing a constructive diamond raise. When the director arrived North explained that South was confused and that the 2C bid was assummed to be a hand with 5 clubs and 10+ points. E-W had the same info.
Jan. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree N-S should not keep the score of +470, but what is fair. I think East thought with the Heart stack that they were getting +300 against a highly doubtful game.
Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East complained vehemently to the director after the hand was over???
Dec. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
60/40 seems reasonable given the actual results on the hand.
Dec. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have had more than one person psyche 1S against me in this situation. In fact some people say they routinely double a 1S bid by responder to counter a 1S psyche.
Dec. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, just play the hand out.
Dec. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I never questioned the legality of the bid. When people are being taught a system where 2C is a game force bid (with less than 4 Clubs) and they can have a strong 5-card and they aren't told this is alertable something is wrong.
Dec. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What kind of mistake? They said this is their system and they forgot to alert. My first question was what system?
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See Kit Woolsey's comment below.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know. I do know that in one instance I was involved in the director verbally polled the “experts”.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe the practice of polling “experts” is seriously flawed. The “experts” often know what conclusion the director is seeking. “When the director approaches is the question in writing or does he rely on verbally relating the information?” Does the director relay all the facts? There used to be a process where a committee was formed to review an appeal and each side could answer questions. Apparently this is no longer used.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David gives a good explanation of what is misinformation and what is a misbid. The problem arises as to when does misinformation and/or a misbid constitute UI. Does a mistaken alert in the bidding sequence 2H-2S-P-2NT-(Mistaken Alert by 2S bidder)P-3C-P-3NT-P-P-P constitute UI? If it does in that case why not in this case? And why shouldn't the score have been adjusted to 3H down one?
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought this was MI at the time and is why I called the director. I was quickly told this was a misbid and tough luck.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No but at least four in a major, otherwise we have another “kettle of fish”.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Why assume you would be getting to a 5-2 heart fit opposite a 3rd seat opener?” I don't understand the comment. The 2D bid showed 4-card heart support.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, I agree with Phil that a player memo should be used for more important matters. In regards to my post : “You Suspect a Psyche by Marion Gebhardt Nov. 4”, I have had this conversation with several ACBL officials including Robb Gordon.
You can see from the reply that the ACBL doesn't want to be bothered. When you are playing Swiss teams it can be difficult to fill out a player memo as you have no electronic record of the hand.



Attn: Robb Gordon
Robb, I have been having this conversation with Charles McCracken (District 16 Head Director) about a way to monitor psyching at tournaments. I believe requiring a player memo to report a psyche is a misuse of this mechanism. Further most players aren’t aware that when they call a director over to report a psyche that no electronic record is kept of the incident. Also the reported psyche could be lost in verbal communications with other directors who may or not be present at that time in the session. I have proposed that a simple electronic log be developed and its use be required for each session. This log could be used for noting a myriad of incidents, none warranting a player memo. As I told Charles, if there is no effective way of monitoring psyches during a session, why have a policy against excessive psyching.

If you are not the ACBL official I should be communicating with on this issue, please let me know who it is.

Thanks,

Marion Gebhardt

Dear Mr Gebhardt –

Sorry to not see this and respond sooner. Because we have no way to enforce mandatory recording of psychs and because the definition of a psych is somewhat subjective, no good purpose would be served by having a mechanism (which would be costly and time-consuming) for such an electronic log.

We allow psychs to be recorded on player memos, but generally prefer that they only be recorded when there is some suggestion of “fielding” by partner of psycher or it appears to be habitual or disruptive (as opposed to the purpose of trying to achieve a good bridge result). I attach an article I wrote recently that hasn’t yet been published on this subject.

Best regards,


Robb Gordon
National Recorder
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, It was 4-card support as I verified today. This was the last hand of the game and I left in a hurry to beat the rush hour traffic.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually E-W play 2-Way reverse Drury with 2D showing 4-Card support. I verified this today. West just forgot. Now I am wondering why East didn't bid 3 Hearts. Makes the two Spade bid even better.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We follow the rule of 20+ in first and second seat. HCPs plus length of two suits adds to 19.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Kit explained N-S is not due an adjustment. This is what I wanted to learn from the post. Also I never appeal a club director's ruling. They get offended.

“Note that NS do not deserve a ruling on the basis that EW have a misunderstanding, i.e. take back 2♠ AND force east to complete Drury to 2♥.”

“In most clubs you have the opportunity to appeal but if you ask here it's probably too late for that. Clubs should encourage appealing director's decisions at this is usually a learning experience for all involved.”
Dec. 5, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top