Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I played relay methods, in an auction where everything was going to be alertable, partner and I just left our alert cards on the table. As each bid was made, bidder's partner would give a light tap on the alert card. If a non-alertable call was made – usually 3NT by relay asker – partner would snatch up his alert card as quickly as possible. Once the auction got above 3NT, we'd pick up our alert cards, but one of us would say something like “The ACBL says you don't get any more alerts, but it's still likely artificial.”

I don't think we annoyed anybody with this procedure, and I don't think anyone was misinformed by it. Opponents were sometimes amused by the quick snatch-up, and of course they were thereby made aware that the call was natural.

One tip if you play against a relay system: a good time to ask for an explanation is after relay responder's first bid at or above the three level. That bid will often reveal RR's exact shape.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg: wasn't Ro16 behind screens? With written explanations? I'm surprised you wanted them stopped, but as to the explanations, that was up to you (and up to your partner on the other side of the screen). If there were no screens at that stage, then automatic explanations were improper, and I'm surprised any top experts would give them.

John: one of the reasons “please don't alert” was disallowed is because alerting becomes automatic, and it seems unfair to force players to make a special effort not to alert. (This is not the only reason.)
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why does partner's double not say only “We were making 3?” At the point it was bid, the auction might have died in 3 had advancer passed.

In that context, whether to pull the double or not seems to depend on vulnerability.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fourth one is also basically always wrong.

The first option is worded badly: there's no penalty for misbids, but they sometimes lead to rectification (typically for UI).
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could “1971” have been the rubber bridge Laws? My vague memory is that those used to be updated out of phase with the duplicate Laws.

It might be worth mentioning that 1975 was when what we informally call “use of UI” became a score-adjustment infraction instead of a conduct infraction.
July 30
Steve Willner edited this comment July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Nic alluded to above, it's worth calculating how many deals one needs to analyze to give a reasonable statistical estimate of the likelihood of cheating. The calculation is not hard given a required confidence level, estimated rates of false positives (suspicious plays by an innocent player) and false negatives (plays aided by cheating but considered normal), and the fraction of deals on which cheating affects play. That last can be estimated based on how often one needs to cheat to produce the desired advantage.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 1963 Laws are in the first edition of the ACBL _Encyclopedia of Bridge_ (title not exact). There were no Laws revisions between 1963 and 1975.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Coming late to this, but I still don't see why anyone would wish to define “collusive” cheating. To me, the most serious offense is _premeditated_ cheating, which is often collusive but need not be. Is someone who steals the hand records in advance less culpable than someone who arranges to receive information from a kibitzer?
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does anyone know more about the statistical model mentioned in the article? I'm _guessing_ they compare a player's moves to those of one or more popular chess programs and flag players who have too many matches, but I have no idea whether that would work.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably 10 in the lower brackets, 12 in the upper ones. The idea of a KO is to play long matches.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or 6 6 6 6 7 or variations on that, putting breaks at places that best reflect the team strengths and preferences.

As other have mentioned, the real problems are
1. MP don't reflect team strength very well, and
2. teams have different preferences about the strengths of opponents they want to play.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John has it right: even if failing to double were a “serious error” – and as others have written, it doesn't come close – it's related to the infraction. The only provision of L12C1e that could lead to a split score is the one about “gambling action.” Even if you deemed the EW failure to double to be gambling, you'd still adjust the NS score (OP's option 3).

I don't think failure to double is gambling at all. EW are entitled to assume South's hand merits the 4S bid in the face of the UI. If South had held what he should have held for the bid, 4S would probably be making.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Aphelion” day?
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That must have been a very long time ago. Though I don't have a copy at hand, I am pretty sure the 1963 Laws contained the “restore equity” provision equivalent to today's L64C. I also thought the automatic penalty (now “rectification”) was two tricks until 1975. Of course Richard's father may have profited even with the two-trick penalty.

The reason I'm pretty sure about the 1963 Laws was because I was on the wrong end of what I believe was an intentional revoke. I had AKQxxx in an otherwise entryless dummy in 3NT. The suit should have run, but the defender with Jxx revoked. The Director gave me back two tricks but not the three the revoke cost. I was pretty sure that was wrong, and I remember verifying later. Of course the Director was never going to rule in favor of some kid, as I was at the time, and against a long-time customer.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I looked up past laws, and the one Paul mentioned was in effect from 1987 until 1997. From 1975 until 1987 and from 1997 until now, it has been one trick plus the revoke trick if won by the revoker. I don't have the 1963 Laws at hand, but I _think_ under those it was two tricks (or more if needed to restore equity). So the OP's Director was just a wee bit out of date.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One way to think about this is to consider partner's (here advancer's) possible problems. Dave Waterman above had the same idea.

Suppose advancer has a weak hand with 2=3=4=4 shape. With no irregularity, after partner doubles a 1 bid, advancer will have to guess which minor to bid. If the double was preceded by a withdrawn 1 bid, there will be no guess. This means double is not comparable.

All that said, it wouldn't be ridiculous – though I wouldn't rule that way – for the Director to rule that double is comparable and see what happens. If advancer holds some hand for which the 1 bid is irrelevant, the table achieves a bridge result. If the 1 bid is relevant, and the offending side might have gained, L23C requires an adjusted score. The OP didn't give advancer's hand, but such an adjustment might have been appropriate in that case.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How would partner bid if holding Jxxxx xx Jxx xxx ?
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“no requirement to explain what a bid might have meant in a different situation.”

Might be true, depending on what “different situation” one means. You aren't obliged to explain in the OP case what an opening 2 bid means, for example. That's a different situation.

Edit: poor example, though the point I was trying to make is valid. If EW had a natural 2 opening bid, the fact that East didn't make it is relevant on this deal. A better example would have been “…aren't obliged to explain what form of Blackwood you play.” That really is a different situation. –end edit

In the OP case, the fundamental fact is “no agreement,” but there is another relevant agreement that may be helpful in inferring what partner intended. Both sides are entitled to know it. If there are possibly relevant meta-agreements, those should be disclosed, too.

“Tell them what you play” is good advice.
June 26
Steve Willner edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim's partner is an expert, though of course anyone can have a bad moment. She seems to have signaled very emphatically for clubs. Could she have started with six of them? That gives declarer a strange 2NT bid, but people sometimes make strange bids.

I'm still not seeing where we are getting five tricks, given that partner didn't open the bidding and declarer's line of play, but I'm nowhere near Jim's level.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He needs to give a full explanation when first asked. That includes what the bid would have meant by an unpassed hand. Mike Shuster, above, has it right.
June 25
.

Bottom Home Top