Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see your point: any improvement would be better than nothing, and “uphill” may be optimistic. I still wouldn't say “suffice,” but I do very much appreciate your effort to push things in the right direction.
Nov. 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael got it. As he wrote, we know the intent because the original C&CC/BoD resolution was (IIRC) correctly worded, but the language got botched when put into the GCC. This is just a symptom of the wider problem Stu is trying to address.
Nov. 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stu

You might want to have another glance at the Blue Book, which I agree is something the ACBL needs. There are 13 pages devoted to convention charts, probably equivalent to 7-8 pages if formatted as the ACBL charts are. The main difference is that the language of the rules is much more explicit and clearer about what is and is not allowed. (For example, the present ACBL GCC declares that a Precision 1C is natural. Who knew?!)

The rest of the Blue Book contains alerting and System Card rules amounting to 12 pages. Title page, table of contents, and index make up the rest of the 32 pages.

The key point about the Blue Book, in my view, is that it contains _all_ the rules a player is expected to know. Noting is hidden in “tech files,” obscure board minutes, or some Director's fallible memory.
Nov. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks very much for the comments. I see your point on 2. Probably my missing it earlier is one of the (many, alas) differences between you experts and me.

I'm still puzzled by 3. As the deal demonstrates, “showing” game forcing strength doesn't mean opponents actually have it. If a force would exist after, say, 1S-2H-3S-4C-4S-, why should responder's potentially very light or misguided 3D change things? Is it that you play against far better opponents than I do, and therefore their bids are more to be trusted?

Prior to this discussion, I wouldn't have played any passes as forcing above 4S, but it looks as though I'm wrong yet again.
Oct. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr. Gaynor:

Do I have your method correct: pass shows nondescript junk with no good suit and limited strength? And you alert it, explaining only “forces redouble,” which suggests that responder's hand might be strong?

Apologies if I have misunderstood your method. If not, given that you admit this in public, I assume you don't realize how wrong your approach is. The alternative is that you are deliberately trying to achieve an illegal advantage by misleading opponents. I don't think your pass is alertable in the ACBL, and your failure to describe responder's hand types is unacceptable.

If you think it's a good idea for opener to redouble, given responder's possible hands, that's entirely up to you. (It makes no sense to me.) Regardless of that, your opponents are entitled to a full and accurate description of responder's possible hand types, and I hope you will start providing that when the situation arises.
Oct. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the question of what explanation to give, David Burn is correct as usual. Advancer is entitled to know what hand types responder can have but not how opener will continue. (Among other reasons for that last, opener's actions and their meaning may depend on the meaning of advancer's pass. Probably won't in this case but could in principle.)

The relevant information can be given either positively by listing hand types or negatively by listing excluded types as Alex suggested, but I think mentioning that strong hands are included in pass (if they are) is required. Another important type is weak 4333; if that's possible, it should be mentioned.

To Richard: yes, absolutely enumerate the hand types with lebensohl. The weak types are most important, and I always list them explicitly. Then I add “various invitational or game force hands, all with a (suit-name) stopper. Do you want to know more?” Usually that's enough, but if advancer wants to know the full list, he's entitled to it. The fact that opener will usually bid 3C is irrelevant and not mentioned.

The real problem types to explain are relays such as Stayman and Blackwood. (Lebensohl is a puppet, not a relay, in careful terminology. Puppets are straightforward, if sometimes tedious, to explain, as the lebensohl example illustrates.) Those two are familiar enough that there's little problem in practice, but it's interesting to contemplate how those should be explained to a hypothetical player who is unfamiliar with them. (Hint: “asking for a major suit” or “asking for aces” aren't, strictly speaking, correct.) Explaining less familiar relays is a matter of describing the hand types they include or exclude, vague as that may often be.
Oct. 21, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice article, as always. I have several questions about the bidding.

1. Why is 2H described as “more conservative” than 3H when 2H shows more overall values? Is this just a terminology issue of what is meant by “aggressive” and “conservative?” (FWIW – not much – I think the choice is close enough that I'd tend to bid 3H over a standard 1S but 2H over a limited, e.g., Precision, 1S.)

2. Why is 3D forcing to game? I'd expect to be able to stop in 3S or 4D. That expectation seems consistent with the actual North hand, which strikes me as rather thin for a game force.

3. Is it wise to let opponents' “forcing to game” affect the meaning of our calls? In the actual auction, partner could have bid 4H if he “just wanted to compete.” I can understand treating 4C as not creating a force above 4H in either auction, but I don't see why their claim to have game values should change anything. Obviously I play against far worse opponents than Kit does; maybe that's the difference.

4. Further to item 3, would the forcing/nonforcing situation be different at matchpoints? If we were going to make 4H, we can't let them play 4S undoubled, can we?
Oct. 21, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Semi-forcing should be understood in terms of history. The traditional 1NT response is limited to 9 or perhaps a bad 10 HCP, whereas the semi-forcing version can have 11 or 12. The ACBL decided (correctly in my view) that the difference is significant enough to require an announcement. While Dale is correct that “semi-forcing” is an illogical term, it was already in circulation when the ACBL adopted it.

I was unaware and am surprised that the Alert Procedure document says that “semi-forcing” by a passed hand is not announceable. (So Marv is right and I was wrong, which is no surprise at all, alas.) I am also surprised that the announcement refers to opener's future action and not to what the 1NT bid shows. That seems bizarre. Another topic appropriate for this “just shouldn't be” thread.
Oct. 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't volunteer to write anything unless there's clear evidence the effort will be welcomed. In the US, there also may be a copyright problem.

Marvin French has written a two-page summary of ACBL alerting.
http://marvinfrench.com/p1/laws&regs/alerts.pdf
While excellent, it is unofficial, and in a quick scan I spotted one thing I believe is an error. (Semi-forcing 1NT response by a passed hand is, I believe, still announceable.)

Not really relevant to this thread, but I've previously suggested a shortened version of the Laws including only the ones players have to know. (Everyone needs to know whose lead it is, but players don't need to know the rectification after a lead out of turn. They just need to know to call the Director.) I've thought this could be a useful marketing tool for people who want to learn bridge.
Oct. 12, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I agree not all cue bids are GF, the original question was meant to ask about those that are.

In your auction 1H-1S-2S, I prefer to have passes forcing, but that's a minority opinion. However, that's a different auction type than what I was asking about. It is still an interesting and perhaps related question, though. Suppose responder instead bids 3H preemptive and then doubles 3S. What should that mean?

More generally, if double after refusing to turn on forcing passes is penalty, what hand type does it show?
Oct. 12, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No relay system would be what I'd expect – responder's rebid after forcing 1NT usually shows shape – but I didn't see anything actually confirming that for the OP's system.
Oct. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin's first “bullet” applies not only to the GCC but also to the other convention charts and not only to those but to all the regulations (alerts, bid box procedures, etc.). There should be a single source for all rules players are expected to follow, and those rules should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. I don't expect perfection, but the EBU _Blue Book_ shows what can be done if there's a will.
Oct. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the comments so far, but none of them answers the question I was trying to ask. I'm thinking of hands where bidding a new suit is not relevant. Maximal doubles apply when they apply, but I'm asking about cases when they don't apply or were not chosen. A specific example might be
1H-1S-3H-?

Now _for us_, 4H will turn on forcing passes, but 4S will not. (I like this even if it's not standard, but I think it's widely played.) Intervenor is unlimited, so advancer cannot bar him from further bidding (unlike Jeff's example).

What does it mean if advancer bids 4S and then doubles when opponents compete to 5H? Does it matter whether the 5H bid was by opener or by responder?
Oct. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The second paragraph is correct, but the third is suspect. The problem is that the ACBL has two conflicting definitions of “relay.”

The definition cited earlier comes from the Alert Definitions document (separate from Alert Chart and Alert Procedures). The definition of “relay” has lots of excess words, but the relevant part is “A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit.” Under this definition, 2C is a relay.

The other definition is on the last page of the Convention Charts, the page about Limited Conventions. Here the relevant part is “one player tells nothing about his own hand.” 2C does tell something about responder's hand and therefore under this definition isn't a relay. I believe this definition should control for convention legality purposes, but I've not seen anything official even noting the conflict.

Even if 2C is a relay, the method is Midchart legal provided responder's next bid after 2C is not a relay.

It's interesting that the ACBL's rules make the mama-papa auction
1suit - 4NT (aces?)
5any - 5NT (kings?)
a relay system by either definition, illegal under the GCC. I expect the rule will never be enforced against this auction, though.
Oct. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is this a problem? The 2C bid itself is Midchart legal, but responder's next bid cannot be another relay.
Oct. 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Consulting” and “polling” are not the same thing. Consulting is mainly to make sure nothing relevant has been overlooked and secondarily to get a sense of whether any bridge judgments involved are clear or murky. Polling is to help make specific bridge judgments.
Oct. 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In your second, made-up case, North gets no sympathy from me. It may be a failure in my bridge analysis, but if North isn't bidding 3S over a natural, competitive 3D, I see no point at all in bidding it when 3D is a game invitation in hearts. First of all, North has a probable trump trick against hearts, and anyway East can still bid game if he wants. 3S just offers the option of doubling if opponents think that's best.

I also don't see any suggestion in the original post of a poll being conducted. Directors should consult on all judgment rulings; failure to do so would be wrong.
Oct. 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is North “always” bidding 3S? It strikes me that holding JTxx in opponents' suit is not the same as JTx, and that bidding is more attractive with the latter than with the former.
Oct. 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could someone give us brief Wolpert biographies? Where did they grow up, where do they live now, and how did brothers end up in different countries? (Apologies if everyone but me knows the whole story.)
Oct. 1, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the critical question. With 22 teams, 21 rounds, how many rounds can you play with arbitrary schedules and still guarantee that all play all?

The basic idea of trying to make the last matches either meaningless or critical to the teams involved does seem good, though. The question is how to achieve it.

One slight wrinkle is that the two US teams (and any teams containing relatives or other personal relations) should probably play each other early to avoid any suggestion of collusion.
Oct. 1, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top