Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Willner
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 2 overcall is Purely Destructive as Ed established far above. That makes the agreement illegal on the Open and Open+ charts.

“Deviation” is no help. Open and Open+ also say “If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific High Card Point or shape requirement, a player may
not use judgment to include hands with fewer High Card points or a different shape.” (This is a change from the way most ACBL rules used to work.)

If the 2 overcall were legal, the legality of psyching it would depend on whether it is Artificial or not. In general, overcalls must promise four cards to be Natural, but there's a provision “After the opening bid any bid is Natural if it suggests the contract bid as the final
contract.” That might or might not apply – it would be an interesting discussion – but for the moment, the question is moot. (I don't see how the overcall can be Quasi-Natural, which would also be legal to psych.)

By the way, clubs need not adopt the ACBL convention rules. I believe both having the 2 agreement and psyching it would be legal where I usually play. (I don't plan to do either one myself, but if you open 2, I don't promise to have a lot of cards in a suit I bid. Partner will, of course, have no more reason to expect shortage than you do.)

ACBL clubs can also have their own Alert rules, but I doubt very many do.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see the confusion now. My comment about a possible psych referred to natural overcalls, not specifically to the OP 2 overcall. I'll address legality of that in the thread below.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In general I agree with your approach. However, in this case, where it's not at all clear what the LAs are and what is suggested, I can't imagine giving a PP. Even with the best intentions, players will sometimes go wrong in difficult situations. Contrast with “Hesitation Blackwood,” where a PP for “using UI” will quite often be appropriate.

As to “away from the table”: everyone is entitled to know the full ruling. As a practical matter, you might take the player away to make sure he understands the UI implications and any questions or comments don't create further UI, but you should advise the whole table what is AI and what is UI and the implications.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who wrote anything about psyching an artificial bid?

RHO opens 2, strong artificial. You bid 2, by agreement showing a 5c suit or maybe a good 4c suit. What's artificial about that? If you happen to have a stiff spade, and partner has no more reason than the opponents to expect that, what's the problem?
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As to legality, I don't think it occurred to the Convention Chart writers that anyone would want to overcall showing high-card values in the suit but not necessarily length.

As to alertability, especially given the above, overcalling without promising length seems to me “highly unusual and unexpected.”

Of course people have been known to psych over strong, artificial bids. That's legal but not what seems to have happened here.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anybody know why the Open event is played over two years but the Women's event is played in a single year? Or am I mistaken about the format?
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When playing with screens, how long does it usually take for the tray to come back?
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the clarification. You might add a mention in your notes. The simple method seems reasonable, but as you say, it should be possible to relay out exact shape if anyone wants to. If you do that, you might want to put the 5M-5M or better shapes all into 2NT and the shapes with a 4cM and longer OM into 2. I think I see why you didn't do that, and one would have to work out all the sequences to check the merits of one over the other.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does anyone think it's OK to use tempo to tell partner “I have a difficult bid,” and partner can take advantage of that?
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting system. I don't see 6+-5+ MM mentioned. Is that in 2NT or elsewhere?
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The article Richard linked is interesting, but the author gives a bizarre definition of ‘entropy’.

I don't see why existing hardware RNGs don't generate truly random numbers.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting that the original attempt seems to have been unsuccessful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Merrimac_(1894)

I'm afraid that sometimes happens at the bridge table, too.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ACBL switched from their flawed deal generator to Big Deal not long ago. If Richard says two years, I believe him. WBF has used Big Deal far longer; I'm sure at least a decade and probably longer than that. The audit capability is relatively recent, though.

If anyone wants a hardware RNG, they are easily available and inexpensive. Search any of the usual computer supply sources.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Could South have been aware that this would well cause damage? Yes.”

Sorry, but along with Paul Barden below, I'm not following that. In some general sense, any irregularity could cause an opponent to go wrong, but “could well damage” needs more than that: a plausible line of reasoning connecting the irregularity to expectation of gain. At a minimum, it seems to me, South would have to have some inkling of the heart position.

If anyone can clear up the reasoning, I'd appreciate it.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disclosure is of partnership understandings. Even if East makes a habit of treating strong 5-c suits as six, in an infrequent partnership, West may be unaware of the tendency.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray's third point is incorrect as a matter of Law. Even in case of “extremely serious error,” the OS score is adjusted when the relevant conditions exist. Tne NOS score may or may not be adjusted, depending on exact circumstances.

Failing to continue diamonds is an ordinary bridge mistake and not an “extremely serious error” in any jurisdiction I know of.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Adam. I was planning to comment on the other post but didn't find time. Below are some general thoughts.

It seems to me the duties of a board are to oversee 1) personnel, 2) finances, and 3) major policy decisions. My own view is that if personnel are aligned with mission, good results will follow. Therefore the board's first duty is to make sure the top-level personnel are performing their duties. Getting details such as CoC right is something the organization needs to do, but the board's primary role is to ensure that employees are taking care of core functions such as that. That doesn't mean board members can't help out, but it shouldn't be the board's job to do routine tasks.

Transparency is a great aid to evaluating performance, and lack of transparency suggests there's something to be hidden.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the drug testing needs to stop completely, but it should be limited to drugs that plausibly might affect bridge performance.
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was able to see the article (dated Apr 29) via a library. The basic thrust is that players are getting older, and games are getting smaller. For example, the “average” (probably really median) ACBL age has risen from 58 to 71 in the last ~20 years, and there's a photo of Chicago 1965 with 4000 “contestants” playing at once. All in all, nothing we don't already know. The news is that this is being seen by the WSJ audience.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another advantage to Nigel's way is that responder is likely to have at least 3 HCP. Over the strong bid, responder can usually just bid game without caring about opener's exact point count. As others have mentioned, if responder has slam interest, there's room to invite.
May 1
.

Bottom Home Top