Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 36 37 38 39
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Monty Python used to proclaim, “and now for something completely different.” Well, not completely, but ten-years-old interesting nonetheless:
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/new-acbl-slow-play-regulations/
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As usual, parts of this rather complete version of the policy can be found here and there around the ACBL site. I cannot remember where I found this version – and I did not as is my practice copy/paste a citation – but a string search revealed a copy of this version at https://cdn.acbl.org/nabc/2018/03/bulletins/db3.pdf.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, I think this means a “no play.” Which is what I do when a table doesn't have dummy down within 2 minutes of the end of the round.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is an actual policy publication:

SLOW PLAY POLICY

Slow play, especially habitual slow play, is a violation of law and subject to penalty. When a pair has fallen behind, it is incumbent on them to make up the time lost as quickly as possible whether at fault or not. All players are expected to make a concerted effort to catch up when they have fallen behind, regardless of the reason for their lateness.

In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the director should presume that a pair finishing a round late by more than two or three minutes on more than one occasion during a session is responsible for the lateness. There is a strong expectation that the director will penalize such a pair. The size of a penalty will tend to increase for subsequent instances of slow play and for chronic or egregious slow play.

While warnings typically will be given before a penalty is assessed, failure to do so in no way limits the director’s authority to issue a penalty. Players are expected to be aware, in a general sense, of time used and remaining in a segment in which they are playing regardless of whether a clock is in use or a time announcement has been made. An excuse of “no announcement” or “no clock immediately visible” will not be considered persuasive.

In consultation with the DIC of the tournament, the TD may require that a particular pair not play in a specified segment, not play against a specified pair or not play together as a pair. The foregoing is expected to be applied only due to egregious circumstances or to unduly repetitious offenders.

An appeal of an action taken by a TD with regard to time may be taken to the Director in Charge of the tournament, and no further. For NABC+ KO events, the TD is charged with the responsibility to ensure that each KO match segment finishes within the allotted time. While a time monitor may be employed, the lack of a monitor in no way limits the TD’s authority to apply one or more of the remedies listed below.

The TD may choose to ignore an occasional minor late finish. The TD may remove one or more boards from a segment. The TD may award no score (when neither team is more at fault), an assigned score (when a result already exists at one table which the TD wishes to preserve) or an artificial score in IMPs. Every effort should be made to remove boards before they can be played at either table, but not having done so does not preclude removing one or more later.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kind of exactly what I do in our (9-17 table) club games. I recognize, however, that in any sizable tournament the results tab in the BridgeMate controller is far-r-r away, and presumably there would be separate screens for separate sections. Walking the beat might even be less boring than klatching at the directors' table.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Players are generally prepared to participate adequately against systems prevalent at the level of the event in which they are entered. IMHO, slow play is entirely a question of adequate monitoring by the directing staff: On the floor, in their sections monitoring play in a short walk around the tables when there is about 3 minutes left in a round. Oh, and the list in the hip pocket, coupled with appropriate warnings that mature into matchpoint penalties, announced when given, not after the game.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
..
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the reason I prefer to play 3 as Serious/Not when are trumps. It's less ambiguous, but partners don't like the extra memory wrinkle.

Without this agreement, and playing Not, I'd cue . Playing Serious, I've decided that 3N shouldn't deny a control and partner is asked to cooperate with anything at all to say, anticipating 5-level safety. I don't want the pressure/ambiguity created when one of us cues 3 and Serious reverts to partner's evaluation of his minimum. Is s/he supposed to cooperate regardless whether the 3 cue is made with either a Serious/Not? What does that tell the cue bidder?

EDIT: and I should say, I suppose, that my favorite is Not with 3=Not when are trumps.
Feb. 13
Scott Needham edited this comment Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hat tip to ML above: “It's all about fit and the information previously imparted in the auction.” One could turn the OP on its head to focus on the same evaluation problem for the hand opposite any Serious try.
Recently, I held AT KQJ84 4 AQ543
Partner held 83 A75 AJ953 KT9
The bidding was
(P)-1-(P)-2
(P)-3-(P)-4
(P)-4-(P)-5
We weren't playing Serious/Not, and I assumed that, without discussion, partner's jump to 4 was a 2/1 “minimum.” He didn't recognize his hand as a “slam-positive minimum.”
Same evaluation issue playing Serious:
(P)-1-(P)-2
(P)-3-(P)-3
(P)-3N-(P)-?
If partner isn't going to recognize this hand as slam-positive after Serious, we aren't playing it correctly.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice hand, Oren. Cherry season much? ;-)

It's clear that the auctions are tougher for all of the usual reasons involving holdings, and that may be reason enough to adopt your structure. This is valuable input; we can probably agree that there are miracle hands and disaster hands for virtually any structure.

I enthusiastically agree with the “unbalanced describes” principle, as, I suspect, most who bother to post here do. I just don't find many stiffs opposite my Bluhmer suits on a frequency basis. Seems to me that most responders would get cold feet after opener's 2 and do whatever it is they do to ask for a stopper: 1-1/1N-2/2-3/3N. Many pairs would get the lead; winning boards for defenders on the lead.

If it is argued that responder loses nothing by trying, what if opener is Ax=KQxx=KJxx=xxx or Ax=Kxxx=KJxx=Jxx or any of the very many more likely opener's hands and, instead of reaching a miraculous slam, you've GFed into a very poor contract? 1-1/1N-2N/3-3/? – now, 3N on a wing and a prayer? 4? – when it could go 1-1/1N-2/2-3/3? Excellent judgment to pass now, but likely we play 4 since opener is min-min.

Always appreciate your posts.
Jan. 23
Scott Needham edited this comment Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my view, the good things about XYZ are the ability to stop low with inv layouts and the ability to recover responder's strong jump shifts with the second round jumps to the three level. Thinking about all of the good stuff above made me realize that 4M-5m GF only kinds of layouts can be handled as outlined: 1m-1M/1N-2/2M-3m , and stoppers sorted out below 3N (maybe some unwinding after 3 when m = ). The three-level gadgets after 2N–>3C can then be reserved for SI layouts with safety to 4N, remembering that we are talking about 1/1/1 sequences. The GF/SI distinction is a “know ‘em when we see ’em” kind of thing, but there you have it. So I'm amending the ‘one possible’ structure above to make it SI rather than GF.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One possible:
R’s 2N relay –>3♣: R may pass with ♣, or

3♦ = GF, 5Y-4X with stiff, relay asks: 1st step = low, 2nd = high
3♥ = GF, 4Y-5X with stiff, relay asks: 1st step = low, 2nd = high
3♠ = GF, 4Y-5X-2-2
3N = GF, 5Y-4X-2-2

I'm aware many don't bother with the 5M-4m hands as per OK, above, to allow some stopper probing.
Jan. 21
Scott Needham edited this comment Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, I'm guessing you meant to write “So, 1♣ - 1♥ - 1N - 2♦ -2 -3♣ should be either 2=5=2=4 or 4=2=2=5….”? or am I again missing something?
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After my response above, I started to think about the first OP sequence and realized that, although it's never come up, for me it could show some 4x1 with and or 4-4-3-2, both with concentrated values in and , that wants to try 3N else 4/5. Other balanced GF hands with spread out values just bid NT; 1-1/1N-2/2-3N is the 5-3-3-2 COG hand. The fit, no control, no 2/3 in would also be possible. Both hand types seem pretty rare just b/c the concentrations suggest concentrated values in both hands, but the GF values have to be somewhere, now, don't they?

EDIT: Now have seen OK's post below, which makes the same kind of point.
Jan. 21
Scott Needham edited this comment Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMHO, it's 2-Way if 2 doesn't force 2, and XYZ if it does. So it matters b/c 2-Way will bid 3 to show drop dead with 4cd & 6+cd. Assuming XYZ:
option 1: yes, but denies 2/3 honors and control
option 2: same
option 3: yes, slammish and pure
option 4: no
option 5: no
option 6: yes: with both 5/4 and 4/5
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm trying to convince my devoted Pre partner, and maybe I have succeeded, that we should use a “real s” xyz after the 1 opener: 1-1M/1Z-2 = must bid 2 with 4+. Also have a way playing Neb 2 to make sure we have stoppers. Call me paranoid.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard to invite with any of the 2-level 3-suited calls: First you have to ask.
Dec. 30, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3
Dec. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bummer
Dec. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If its just natural aftr the positive/waiting 2, no Kokish, what's wrong with 3 after 3, and 4 after 3? Then 4-4N/4 keys-Q ask/6 pass? W doesn't know E is 5-5; E could overbid.
Dec. 7, 2019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 36 37 38 39
.

Bottom Home Top