Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd play the 2N response forcing if I could find takers; I like 1m-2m = 7+-12-.
June 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Concede the legal issue based upon 20(f)(3), which, truth to tell, I don't ever remember reading before. But I still think active ethics implies one should wait for partner to lead.
June 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, I don't think any of this ahs to do with disclosure. I think it hs to do with creating a scenario where UI can flourish–and, not coincidentally, risking putting a lot of pressure on the asker's partner.

20(f)(3):
During the auction and before the final pass any player may request, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

As I read this, everything after “He is entitled….” is limited by “an explanation of the opponents' auction.” That is, opps must tell the questioner everything they know about each call in the auction but only in the context of an explanation of the entire auction. To ask about a single call, in this context, is to highlight, intentionally or not, the importance of that particular call.
June 1, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment June 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, I don't think any of this has to do with full disclosure. It has to do with creating an environment where UI will flourish.
June 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So long as the question requests “an explanation of the opponents' auction” – which is different than ‘the content of a single call’ (see, again, Moese and others, above) – no problem. This would seem to be “proper procedure” in answer to my OP question, and could've/should've been an answer option.

Maybe ‘the director’ to whom you refer hasn't read that language? or doesn't understand it to mean what it says?
June 1, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment June 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I've noticed that the large majority think there is no problem; not only that, never a problem.

I do. As a director, I'd like to find some authority explicitly for/against “your only legal options are answer the question, or call the Director.” As a player, I'm not really comfortable with an elastic environment wherein I have to decide whether the question merits a director call.

In the club, I would not advocate a director call to protect the auction against a possible “indelicate” question. At another level of competition, I'd probably listen to the question, then decide about a director call. In the games that I direct, I would, if called, take the questioner away from the table to ask why s/he asked then instead of waiting for partner's lead, and try to open eyes regarding the possibility for UI if the answer was “I just wanted to know.” Most of our players who do have a question WILL say “partner, please lead face down….” TO MAKE SURE PARTNER DOES; some couldn't care less, they are just enjoying a social afternoon; some don't know, would want to.

Maybe I'll ask “rulings@acbl.org.” I'd certainly like it if everyone performed per Moese's first post, above, and others similar.

EDIT: STUFF IN CAPS ADDED TO DISAMBIGUATE
May 31, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment June 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. In any higher level competition, I suggest the passout asker await partner's lead. In our local clubs, I'll usually answer a ‘content of an alert’ question on the grounds that “what the heck,” and if leader takes advantage of UI the whole table gets a good lesson, without rancor, on why it's indelicate to ask in general.
May 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Splinters, which may be 4x1, include more hand types than Fit Jumps, which most seem to require as 5-4-3-1 or 2-2. But I'm with the two levels crowd.
May 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem would seem to be teams asking and being allowed to play up that end up being cannon fodder and skew the match-ups while getting their ‘much better bridge experience.’

Perhaps this kind of thing could be monitored in a database – a ‘don’t let these guys do it' flag – but it would also seem like it would be very, very difficult to manage unless there are specific exceptions. Like: ‘Qualifying members of US national representative teams may apply to the tournament organizer for an exemption.’ So get out the keyboard or pen and paper and write your District BOD and urge them to push the issue at the national BOD.
May 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey, all my partners: See how good those inv+ splinters can be?
May 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
CZ: Or (last example sequence in another structure) 1-1M/1N-2/2-3. I believe the 2N–>3 relay adds value for alternative slam tries at the 3 level. YMMV.

BL: I don't see why XYZ should be off in any comp unless 2 is not available. I'll trade off the inability to play 2 here, as in many other structures, for the advantages it offers. YMMV.
May 28, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment May 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
CZ: In many versions of XYZ, the jump to 2N relays to 3, either to play there or go forward to describe some slammish 4M-5m or 5M-4m. And 2–>2 then 2N denies 4cd . It's a complicated world.
May 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, what I meant by “what went unused”: I was afraid partner, who is relatively unused to XYZ, wouldn't realize it was on in this sequence.
May 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
forcing, balanced raise.
May 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actual 2 hand: Q=Axx=KQxxx=Jxxx. Most days I'd open this, I guess, but didn't like the stiff Q. Wanted partner to be in NT if he held Qx or maybe J9x or similar.
May 27, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment May 27, 2018
UI?
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In many structures, 3 would show 5cd and a max, tolerance for . I hope partner hasn't overcalled a 1=5=(3-4), b/c we will play in from my side. Which sucks.
May 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've gotten flack from opps for alerting Serious/NonSerious 3N. Some TDs like the alert, some have told me not to do it.
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. So if it goes 1♠-2♣/2♥-3♠/4♣-4♦/4♥-4, is responder saying go ahead if you are better than absolute min?
May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was asking about responder?
May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, here's a question for those who chose “Serious”: What kind of hand do you expect partner to hold for initiating Ser3N? I realize this is a broad question, but we can presumably eliminate a lot of source-of-tricks blockbusters and focus on some of the more mundane shapes?
May 10, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top