Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't get the confusion to the “If 1 isn't forcing, how could 2 be?” line of thought.

The reverse or jump shift is a forcing bid because partner could muster some response. Without that, your new suit isn't any more forcing than the last one was. If you don't care what P has and want him to bid, that's what your 2 opener is for.

In a distantly related auction, say you have a quacky balanced 19 count and this happens.

1 (X) P P
?

You were planning to rebid 2NT, but that doesn't work when the opps are the only other people bidding, right? The jump to 2N is safe BECAUSE P was able to respond. Since in this auction he didn't, your bids are lending him values from your hand, and so you're bidding 1N.

In the OP's example, you've got the opp's suit and double available…two bids you didn't have before. Those, lacking other agreements, would seem to be your forcing options.

If you are getting a unique and crummy result from an auction that starts with you opening 1m and partner making a reasonable call to pass, then you probably should have opened it 2
Jan. 22
Joe Hertz edited this comment Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I knew it wasn't preemptive” makes “Not sure” an insufficient of explanation at best. I'm fine with the director's ruling for them. You were entitled to know what he knew, and chose poorly as a result.

But I'm not 100% you should be entitled to that same score. A simple, “Do you have an agreement and you're not sure what it is, or are you not sure that you have an agreement?” could have solved that problem.

Of course, if you do this, then you get people who insist that a truthful but speculative answer as to what they think pard's bid means is what is required of them by full disclosure (yes, they had to answer in front of their partner. You asked them the question after all!) and think that you are up to something because you asked them to not guess and just state what their agreement is.
Jan. 21
Joe Hertz edited this comment Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please tell me Mercutio gets to be on the committee.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leading out of turn is an improper procedure. We don't assign PP's for that.

It's the penalty that's procedural, not the act it's penalizing. And yes, it's punitive.

Assigning trick transfers due to established revokes aren't penalties. They are corrections or adjustments.

I'm careful not to use the word penalty unless I mean it.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've quit assuming people know what they are doing. I hope and give them the benefit of the doubt, but nothing ever surprises me anymore.

At a regional, I've had an opp tell me that, when I am dummy, I should not be telling my partner which hand he is in without sufficient reason. Specifically I was told that I needed to wait until partner “made a false move” before I tried to correct him. I knew that to be utterly wrong as a TD had ruled at my table before that once declarer says “Play the Queen of Diamonds”, it's been designated, which makes it too late to try to correct the declarer. I suggested my opp call the director if my partner became declarer again, which did happen, but the opp did not avail himself of my suggestion. As it happened, the hand I put down that time was flat, yarbesque and there was no way declarer was going to be leading from it.

I have also had a quite experienced opponent in a GNT-A District level event have his pass card out while I had mine out. Rather than put mine down on the table, I held mine up and said, “Do you mind?” to him.

His comment to me was, “I always bid fast, you were already passing. If you don't like it, call the director”. Since I didn't like it, I had to oblige him on that.

This opp clearly needed the rules explained to him, but all he got from the director (THE SAME director that had ruled on the designated card from my first example) was, “Please think more about playing in proper tempo”. The issue was he simply thought what he did *was* playing in proper tempo.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've yet to meet a learning bridge player that didn't appreciate having the law or basis for it explained. My 199ers often ask me to show them the part of law book I read from after I make a ruling, just so they can understand what they should do the next time.

Breaking the law is how most new bridge players actually learn what the laws are. Director explanations are the very best method we have to accelerate those learning curves.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not for nothing, but if a signal tells partner about your holding and not about what you think of the suit being lead, it really should not be called an “attitude signal”. It may very well be useful data for your partner to have in some situations, but that data is not attitude.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy,

Not at all. I'm saying Debbie knows better than to treat Juniors in the crummy manner you describe.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given Debbie's well documented background in helping to mentor junior players, I cannot imagine that scenario as coming anywhere remotely close to happening.

I'd have called it unthinkable, except someone just thought of it.
Jan. 13
Joe Hertz edited this comment Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was about to say that if this opp really understood what his obligations were and was intentionally trying to escape from them – ethics be damned, then he had a “far more effective” escape route:

Had he not told the opps there was a failure to alert, now it just looks like he's underbid his hand a bit and then made a try for 3N.

I wish there was a more formal way to complain about director rulings. More than once I've been told, “Well you weren't damaged, so what's the problem?”. Once after a withdrawn call by an opp was ruled to be AI for their partner (the opps were ethical – they had asked if it was AI or UI first).

The most I've been able to do about this stuff is to get other directors attention about it after the fact. I have zero idea as to if it helps get better rulings made in the future.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm thinking the hitch was considering bidding 3. Or maybe even 4 since he thinks I've got at least a doubleton in the suit.

So unless I've got some agreements about follow-ups in this auction, 3NT is the only choice.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Charging for the e-mails is helpful because it causes people to behave responsibly. No more abuses and multiple sends.

This implies that abuse and multiple sends have been a problem.

I'll buy the latter. People should think twice before they hit the send button to make sure they have included everything they want…

But abuse? Do tell.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There should have been a unit recorder that would (should?) have had a file on these folks if they have the habit the director says they have. Surely this director would have filed a player memo with them, right?

If they really have this history, the director had a place to document it.

* == ACBL Unit Recorders no longer exist. As on January 2020, disciplinary matters are now handled at the unit level. Unit recorders were supposed to send their files to the District Recorders.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South has to all intents and purposes passed out the bidding

That might be an overbid. Purposes might be true…but if he didn't see it, it wasn't his intent. He might get saddled with a pass if that is what the policy states the people around him are entitled to interpret his action as, but it wasn't his intent.

I honestly don't know what the answer to this question is, but if he was required to bid and the regs state that he did not do so, then still gets to make a call.

It's really a matter of if picking up the cards, per regulation or law, constitutes a pass. Even if it does say that, this is absolutely not like a slip of the tongue. He had no intent to pass (or make any other call).
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or South did see West's call and knew that his pass would end the auction and so picked up his cards to signify he was passing.

Assuming you are correct about what has happened, what would then happen if everyone else also picks up their cards and North makes an opening lead before anyone realizes the issue?
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you can successfully tell your opponent to go to hell in such a way that he would look forward to the trip, I doubt he would summon the director.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought about that, but I thought a complaint of “This person is interfering with my enjoyment of the game” is understood to mean “He's being an asshole”, and that the intent of 74A2 was to say “strive to be polite”.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just had someone PM me that the ACBL General CoC cover this.

http://web2.acbl.org/coc/AllGeneral.pdf">http://web2.acbl.org/coc/AllGeneral.pdf

No comparison of scores, or discussion of results, is permitted during the course of a session. Violation carries a penalty of one full board.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly. What's South's complaint? That he was testing to see if you knew when he was allowed to inquire?
Jan. 10
.

Bottom Home Top