Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bud Hinckley
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 92 93 94 95
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia, unfortunately that is no longer correct, when the new convention cards came out 14 months ago.

Matt Smith’s quoted article elsewhere in these threads make this crystal clear. Mis-sorting your hand is the only time you aren’t liable for a PP and/or adjusted score if you make an illegal ACBL bid (such as psyching an artificial opening bid or opening 1NT with a small singleton, 9 HCP, or outside a five HCP range), but you’ll need to be very convincing!

Doing it rarely doesn’t matter any more - it’s still illegal, and you can’t say you were psyching if your HCP are not more than an ace less or more than your range.
36 minutes ago
Bud Hinckley edited this comment 34 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That quote is much less punitive (once you confirm the call is illegal) than what has been discussed very recently in these threads.

With the conclusions in the quote above, it would be beneficial to be given the law references leading to the conclusions. Most can be found, but some are less clear about when you as Director have options, both for the offenders and the score for the non-offenders.
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could choose to use 4 instead of 4 as the slam try. Then you at least allow a “last train” 4 bid. If you choose this, then you use 4NT as the keycard ask after setting trumps with the previous bid. This assumes 3 showed an unknown splinter.

Something vital here is opener making his next call in tempo. We’ve all seen a player set trumps so he can ask for keycards with 4NT next, then his partner tanks before signing off, causing a problem if his partner’s keycard ask isn’t a clear action.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Law 12A2: The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).”

Ed, I guess I need to be convinced that we can apply the “no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board” after the players completed play of the board, and only then was the illegal bid recognized.

This would be a great educational topic for up and coming Directors. I know for the illegal ACBL bids (1NT opening with small singleton, 6 point range, or less than 10 HCP, or artificial opening bid being psyched, plus perhaps others), I would like to know the specific law references used for the ruling, plus what options I have, if any, regarding the non-offender’s score as well as the offenders, both at matchpoints and at imps (knockout/Swiss).
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking at Laws 40B4 and 12B1, I don’t see the non-offenders necessarily having their score improved. From 12B1: “Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.”

The Director will give the NOS the benefit of the doubt - but if in his opinion, the score would have been the same without the infraction, the NOS score is unchanged.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. An (assigned) adjusted score can be the same score obtained at the table. And for both sides.

2. If you don’t agree with the “both sides” above, certainly an (assigned) adjusted score can be the same for the non-offenders and reduced for the offenders.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, unless I’m mistaken, the score for the NOS might not be changed, that is, nothing says they get at least A-plus.

And for the OP’s situation, the NOS score was poor only because their Flight C pair didn’t get to a failing game. I say they keep their score unless someone shows me they are REQUIRED to get an improved score.

Welcome to our world! This happens to most of us at least once a session against a poor pair.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I purposely didn’t describe what those two bids meant.

You can answer assuming the agreements you gave above.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Matt Smith’s text is clear and instructional. But it dealt only with determining no legality opening 1NT with a small singleton.

It would be very helpful to club directors to add an extra paragraph or two describing the proper/possible rectification (including procedural penalty) and the requirement/options involving the non-offender’s score.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If responder was 4=4=0=5 and in their partnership opener bids a 4-card spade suit before a 3-card heart support over 3, I’d think with borderline slam try or not there might be a tank, then a 5 bid to sign off.

I have a feeling you need some significant detail about their agreements to know 5 really is Exclusion.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is treated similarly to opening a 10-12 1NT opening with 9 HCP, no matter how good your spot cards happen to be. Or psyching a strong and artificial 2C opening bid. In ACBL, it’s illegal to do so.

The non-offenders are not necessarily getting a better score when this happens. Bad luck if offenders stopped short of a failing game. Unless the defense would defend a trick better, no adjustment for them.

Offenders should be given a matchpoint procedural penalty, although with a Flight C pair, hopefully some good education would be better than docking them a few matchpoints.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Best to have a good but not solid suit which if partner has the filler, it becomes gold.

If you hold AKQJT and show it, partner won’t be thrilled, so you need not show it!
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know many or most use the immediate jump as game forcing (and likely slam interest). But I learned it as Richard describes - slow denies 5th card in responder's first suit, jump promises 5th card in responder's first suit.

With 3 invitational and passable in both auctions.
Jan. 14
Bud Hinckley edited this comment Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1-1-1NT-3 = 5-4 or 5-5 invitation
1-1-1NT-2-2-3 = 4-5 invitation (denies a 5th spade)

The slow route showing only a four card major, the immediate jump showing five cards in responder's major.

The same holds true if responder bids 3 instead of 3 in both auctions.

Therefore, all game forces go through 2 (although one exception would be to bid 2 then jump to 3NT to show a 5-3-3-2 choice of games).
Jan. 14
Bud Hinckley edited this comment Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marshall, I realize you SHOULD have a bit better than an 8-loser hand to have a MINOR suit invitation.

But my opponents may not (usually don't) realize that.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marshall, you are treating Q5432 the same as QJT98.

Adjusting for extra queens compared to aces is fine - in general. BUT - with the a queen having supporting honors, things change.

QJx as 2 1/2 losers and KQx as 1 1/2 losers are other examples where for those holdings you don't apply the “add a half loser for the excess queen” rule.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marshall, I make adjustments for losing trick count, although my opponents may not. One local player I know consistently considers Qxx Qxx Qxx Qxxx as 8 losers, despite my trying to educate him.

But how are you determining 8 1/2 losers for the hand 9xx x Kxxx QJTxx above? (I purposely used the K and not the ace so no adjustment was needed, along with including the 10.)
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An important question for opponents to ask is “how do you determine if a hand is invitational?”. In the last five to ten years, I am seeing more and more opponents obsessed with losing trick count calling nearly all eight loser hands “invitational” that look very weak with no defense, and thus deterring (although not deliberately) opponents from competing.

Here is an example of an 8-loser hand which was described as invitational to me by an opponent within the last few months (in this case, they played double raise after an overcall as invitational).

9xx x Kxxx QJTxx
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As has been mentioned by others and myself previously, the description “natural and less than invitational” is simple, short, and covers it completely (if that was their agreement).
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Transfer to 3 and then bidding 3, if it is to show 5-5, would be slammish. The same is true in standard Stayman auctions.

But playing Muppet, playing that as 4=5 majors is reasonable. Then the only problem child is the 5=4 majors hand which can be bid with 2NT-3-3-3-? where opener then bids 3NT with 2=3 majors, 4 with a non-slammish hand, and 4!m control bid with three spades and a great hand for a spade slam.
Jan. 10
Bud Hinckley edited this comment Jan. 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 92 93 94 95
.

Bottom Home Top