Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Tryfonas Papadopoulos
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Allow a non ACBL member to make a counter proposal, very similar to standard EBL rules with some modifications.

First of all, a clarification: an alert (pre-alert, alert, special alert, post-alert) is a procedure designed solely for the benefit of the opponents. Now that we understand that, let's move on.

a) No announcements whatsoever.
b) Have a definition of what is an expected system with expected bids. Stayman for example is considered natural. A 2 response to 1NT, showing clubs, requires an alert.
c) Require a pre alert at every table, stating the basics: 1NT range, natural or strong club/diamond or artificial and if natural, length of minor openings.
d) Alert all bids that deviate from standard/expected
e) Special alert all bids that might be confused with another common treatment. An example would be, assuming that 2 transfer over 1NT requires an alert, a 2 over 1NT that is GF Stayman.
f) Prohibit alerts of all natural bids , passes, doubles and redoubles.
g) Prohibit all alerts over 3NT, with the exception of artificial openings of 4 and above, eg NAMYATS.
h) Prohibit alerting of control/keycard asking bids below 3NT, in the context of a natural system, ie allow alerting of Precision Asking bids.
i) Require post alerting of all non alertable artificial bids, ie artificial passes, doubles, redoubles and bids over 3NT.
j) Require players to use uniform alerting style.
k) Expanding b, a good idea is to define as natural/expected a basic system of 5 card majors with limit responses and no transfers. One might say “back to stone age”, but a basic standard is required in order to define what is non alertable and what is alertable.

Simplicity is the key in amending an alerting procedure, and if done with having that in mind, it can serve its purpose and minimise chances of UI.

Accordingly, directors should be provided with the power to determine if lack of an alert actually damaged the non offenders and in a similar way, if alerting a non alertable bid actually favored the alerting side.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am quoting Law 71B together with its footnote:

“LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED
A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:
A. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
B. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.”

Footnote: For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

So, if there is a normal (even inferior or careless) line of play that could result in the loss of the trick, claim stands, two tricks, strictly by the book. The correction period (L79C) is 20 minutes after results are published in BBO I believe.

It is really a question of how do we want to play on BBO. Laid back, or by the book? Personally I prefer the second, and this is the reason I find it difficult to direct a tournament on BBO since most participants have a different opinion.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We prefer 2 as strong (16+) with at least 6 diamonds, where 2 shows 5-4 6-9 and 2 the same but with 10-11.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Samatnha, in Greece, Bridge Clubs work as follows:

1) Their legal entity is a non-profit organisation. That means that their “purpose oriented” turnover (membership fees, subsidies, sponsorships, grants and table fees) are tax free. Any profit is not distributed but solely used for the purpose (the promotion of duplicate bridge in our case).

2) They can be a department of a larger NPO, if for example there is a “National Bank of Greece Pensioners' association” it can establish a bridge department.

3) They can also be a part of a larger sports club, as long as it is not proffessional.

4) The affiliation with the NBO (Hellenic Bridge Federation) is mandatory if they want to be called Bridge Clubs, since Bridge is recognised as sport in Greece and the HBF is an official sports federation with all benefits and responsibilities implied.

5) The aforementioned NPOs, require a court approval and a minimum number of members to be established. They are run by a BoD comprising no less than 3 members with a term stated in their statute.

6) Bridge players with a valid membership no, bear the status of athlete. There is a yearly fee for that, frozen at 30EUR for the past 20 years more or less. If you don't have a valid and up to date membership, you are excluded from all regional and national championships as well as internal club championships. You may only play at regular club sessions for up to 5 times per calendar year.

7) Clubs pay yearly membership fees to the federation, together with a table fees (ranging from EUR0.40 to EUR1.5 per player per session, depending on the grade the session/championship belongs to).

8) There is no Regional or District Administration due to the relatively small number of clubs, members and geographical area covered. However, every prefecture, and any clubs there, is a part of a region only for purposes of regional championships organisation.

I will be happy to elaborate on any of the above if that helps you and answer any questions!
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Stu, I did not notice that 3 does not promise a 4cM, apologies. In that case, if the 3 bid promises GF values, I see it as 100% controled psyche. I agree with Mike, “…and say nothing more” is not a proper statement. There has to be an agreement that 3 does not promise or deny anything. It just asks for 5cM. For full disclosure purposes, a statement like “may be done with a weak 5 hand” should be included.

To clarify the matter a bit more, I quote a seminar textbook example of controled psyches:

Imagine playing Muiderberg. Partner opens 2 ( and a minor, weak). You hold x-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx. If your agreement is that 2NT asks for the minor with X values and you respond 2NT with this hand (where the proper response is 3 pass/correct), it is a controlled psyche.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The way I see it, no ACBL stuff nor anouncing implied, if 3 PROMISES GF values, it is by 75% a control, assuming that there is a 25% chance that P bids 3nt with no 4 or 5 card major. I believe the best thing to do, is include the weak option to your explicit agreements and just alert “either GF, looking for 5cM or weak with at least 5 (or any other weak option you see fit)”. If 3 does NOT promise anything but just asks for 5 card major, then I see no problem. By definition, an implicit or explicit agreement cannot be a psyche.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Walsh for me, the variation where 1-1-1M shows an unbalanced hand and support of said M is 3 card.

Used to play that M rebid or support by responder is GF if having bid first (1-1-1-2 for example), changed it though.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our structure is as follows (multi 2 required):

1NT: 10-12 (1st/2nd/3rd NV vs V), use Meckwell escapes if doubled for penalty.
1 any and 1NT rebid: 13-15
1 any and 2NT rebid: 16-17 (wolf signoff suggested). Not applicable to 1-1 auction or 1M-1NT auction because we use Gazzili.
2NT: 18-19
2 (multi) with 2NT rebid after 2M or 3NT rebid after 2N response: 20-21
2 with 2NT rebid after 2 response: 22-23
2-2-2-2-2NT (Kokish): 24+
2-2M-2NT (Kokkish): 22+

We have found that 2 point ranges until 15 points and 1 point range from 16 upwards is the optimal treatment. In all other cases, 1NT is 15-17 with no 5card M (unless excactly 15p with 5332) and 2NT opening is 8-11 both minors.
March 27
Tryfonas Papadopoulos edited this comment March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not quite: the drink of the day is Quarantini. Like a normal Martini, you just drink it alone.
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, a demonstrably suggested action must have a logical alternative to be chosen over, mustn't it?

In our case, the 3N bid is the “demonstrably suggested” action and “pass” the logical alternative, derived from the poll.

Apologies for not making a clearer post before.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In order to define “demonstrably suggested”, a poll is conducted amongst peers. The Director must have good understanding of the game, but cannot be expected to match the skills of world class players, hence the poll.

I believe that an action taken by at least 30% of the players polled, is considered to be a logical alternative according to EBL guidelines, let alone 100% as the result of the poll mentioned in the OP.

On the other hand, the words used for the directors' guidelines concerning polls, infer that the poll results are not binding for the director. Yes, that can lead to “arbitrary” decisions but then again this is why reviewers and appeal commitees exist.

From whatever has been stated about said case, there might be flaws with the actions TD took. I have stated my thoughts on my previous post.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just don't mention my name! I wasn't even born last time he has in Greece, LOL!
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have to check the balancing agreements in order to define the 1 call as comparable: if 1 balancing shows opener+ and 5+ spades, it is. If it shows less than opening values, it is not. 2 is the most comparable call in this situation (opener with 6+ spades is a subset of opener with 5+ spades) and X is not comparable at all since an opener with 4+ spades is not a subset of an opener with 5+ spades. The X MUST show 5+ spades in order to be deemed comparable.

To understand comparable calls, one must come to terms that 5+ is a subset of 4+ and not the opposite. When this term was introduced 2 years ago, I know I had some difficulty with this “subset inversion”…
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jill and Ed: The HBF is compiling a journal of bridge in Greece and Stelios is a big part of it. There are some great stories there and if I have the time I will gladly translate them for you since you know him. I also recall that the writer of this journal states there that Stelios's whereabouts are unknown for years so I would be grateful if you have some info on that together with facts from the 80's to date.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totally agree about the applicable law. Furthermore, since the Q finesse is the only way to make the contract, the 50/50 ruling is not an option I believe. I might consider a PP for huddler as well.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With all due respect for Mr Welland, and the other posters, take away North's A and give him KQ and a club less. One more point, 3NT never makes on a lead, and a contract that would be definately reached since N would probably open the hand. Would we be discussing this now? Apart from that, there are some things to consider:

a. Does the 3 bid show extras? If yes, and can be proven, score stands. If this bid can be made with far less strength according to their methods, then we have a problem.
b. The poll is not binding for the TD. However, if one is conducted, it is conducted for a reason. This reason is not clear considering the outcome.
c. Many disagree with the pass over 3 as an option. Myself included when playing IMPS, especially at high level tournaments. Understandable, but the TD is not there to judge bridge skill. This is why the poll is conducted with players of similar level.
d. After the ruling, shouldn't an appeal be filed? I believe it would stand a good chance especially with the poll results.

It will take many years for me to reach a level to direct half of such a tournament, but if I was the TD I would have acted like this:

a. Conduct a double poll by asking players what would they bid over 2 and by asking what would they bid over 3. Not the same players obviously. And not only 5.

b. Decide according to the poll and advise the “disadvantaged” side for the appeal procedures. In the case stated in the OP, I would have disallowed the 3NT bid.

c. According to b, find a good hiding place to stay out of sight from the sponsor and delegate a lot to my assistant TDs…
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe win with ten, and then play queen is the most neutral play. I looks symmetrical to win with ace then play Jack.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could be useful if an encouraging signal is received, so 3rd seat must have either the queen or the Jack.

If used in another context, say lead K from AKQ and receive a discouraging signal, it should be properly disclosed and even still, some might say that it could fall under tne “encrypted signals” clause.

I am not a big fan of defense with rules written in stone and I don't believe that such an agreement is worth changing my carding methods in the long run.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Plus the “Not Played” is an option not available everywhere. Even if it was, there is no power with the TD to deem a board as “not played”.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am an optimist Richard, so TD error is my last option.
March 8
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top