mrdct

I can think of several other potential meanings of doubles: - showing precice length in a specific suit (e.g. support dooubles); - showing general length or values in a specific suit (e.g. lead directing doubles); - calling for an unusual lead (e.g. lightner double); - inviting game in a competitive auction (e.g. maximal doubles); - showing a control; - keeping an auction alive after a forcing pass situation; - responding to an asking bid; - making an asking bid.

What's this dealing thing that people are talking about? Doesn't everyone just play the cards as the come out of the board?

Another good option, particularly useful for smartphones and tablets, is www.bridgebase.com/mobile.

Which regulations would those be?

What's going on here? What do you think happened here? What did you intend to bid? Why did you pull the 2♦ card out of the box if you wanted to bid 3♦? Did you realise your partner had bid 3♣?

Is that a true statement? I thought the whole idea (albeit misconceived) about having system regulations that constrain partnership agreements about weak twos, be that "Rule of 15" or "can't play conventional responses if your range is >x", is to provide certainty and protection to opponents such that they will know what they dealing with when you open a weak two and that can only really be provided if "points" are based on A=4, K=3, Q=2 and J=1. Under the "Rule of 15" I think it's quite clear that the intent is that "points" are actual high-card points as the distributional aspects of hand evaluation are built into the rule. However, the ACBL 7-point range requirement for a weak two that has conventional responses is less clear in terms of whether you can count your distributional points. At the end of the day, it's all about proper disclosure and not having concealed partnership understandings. In the OP's case, which is in a jurisdiction where there are no restrictions on two-level openings, all that is required is that the partnership agreements be properly disclosed. If you open 3 or 4 counts at certain vulnerability and/or positions, you need to disclose that to your opponents and I don't think "6 cards 6-10hcp" adequately encompasses such an agreement.

Thanks Rich.

When I logged into the Windows version of BBO this morning it told me that a new version was ready for instalation so I clicked OK and it did its thing, but got a error allong the lines of "Could not create robot/gib" and the installation failed. Now each time I log into BBO it downloads the update again which is slowing my system down and chewing through my limited bandwidth. I'm running Windows 7 Professional SP1. I really need to get this sorted in the next hour as I need to kibitz a unibridge match to capture the LIN which I can't do with the flash version.

Well that is starting to sound ridiculous. One reg says you need to alert SPUs and another reg says there are no SPUs! At the end of the day, however, I have never ever seen anyone get into trouble for alerting something that isn't alertable and I think BBO has the best alert regs of any jurisdiction, "if in doubt - alert".

Since when does being a playing director preclude one (or even excuse one) from calling the director?

I think you need to reread the German Alerting Regulations: §15: Alertieren und Auskünfte (1) Die Gegner sollen durch das korrekte Alertieren vor Schaden infolge Unkenntnis einer Partnerschaftsvereinbarung bewahrt werden. Das Alertieren ersetzt nicht das Vorhanden-sein der vorgeschriebenen Konventionskarten. Andererseits befreit ein Alert oder sein Unterbleiben den Gegner nicht von der Beachtung seiner eigenen Sorgfaltspflicht im Sinne eines sportlichen Wettkampfs. Auch haben die Gegner das Übermitteln unerlaubter Infor-mationen durch unnötige Fragen zu vermeiden; vgl. Abs.5. Jedes Paar kann vor Beginn der Reizung verlangen, dass seine Gegner bis zum Ende der Runde nicht alertieren. (2) Folgende Ansagen sind zu alertieren: 1. künstliche Gebote (vgl. TBR, Begriffsbestimmungen); 2. Ansagen mit ungewöhnlicher Bedeutung oder solche Ansagen, die auf einer besonderen, ausdrücklichen oder impliziten, Partnerschaftsvereinbarung beruhen (vgl. § 40 TBR); 3. nicht forcierende Sprünge in neuer Farbe als Antwort auf eine Eröffnung oder Gegenreizung sowie nicht forcierende Farbwechsel einer ungepassten Hand auf eine Eröffnung des Partners von 1 in Farbe. (3) Außer bei der Verwendung von Screens dürfen die folgenden Ansagen nicht alertiert werden: 1. alle Pass, Kontra und Rekontra; 2. alle SA-Gebote, die eine ausgeglichene (4 3 3 3 oder 4 4 3 2 oder 5 3 3 2 Verteilung) oder annähernd ausgeglichene Hand (5 4 2 2 oder 6 3 2 2 oder 4 4 4 1 oder 5 4 3 1 Verteilung, wobei ein Single entweder A, K oder D sein muss) zeigen oder einen SA-Kontrakt vorschlagen; 3. alle Ansagen auf 4er oder höherer Stufe ab der 2. Bietrunde, auch wenn sie normaler-weise alertpflichtig wären. Now my German is that great, but §15(2)1 looks like "Artificial as per WBF definitions" and §15(2)2 looks like "Special Partnership Understanding as per Law 40 a.k.a. conventional". So Germany seems to have all bases covered that you need to alert "artificial" and "conventional" calls unless they are exempted by §15(3).

This is where the RAs come in to develop local regulations and local interpretations as provided for in the Laws and and as provided for extensively in Law 40.

The willingness to play there is conditional on responder holding a ♦ suit which is not known to opener at the time he makes the 2♦ call, so all that 2♦ says is "I'm doing what our partnership agreement tells me to do after the 2♣ puppet". 2♦ could virtually be considered a "pass or correct" bid which I believe is universally considered artificial, conventional and alertable.

I'll give it a go. WBF Systems Policy Clause 2.1 (definitions) Natural a call or play that is not a convention ['special partnership understanding' as defined in Law 40B1(a)] So under the WBF Systems Policy, "convention" takes the meaning of "special partnership understanding" from Law 40B1(a): In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as “special partnership understandings”. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament. The role of the RA comes up no less than 11 times in Law 40, so it's important to consider the definition of "convention" with your local regulations firmly in mind. In my jurisdiction, for example, our definition of "convention" is: A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

Director please!

OK, I think I see where you are coming from; but you probably should've said that your jurisdiction was Germany, not the WBF. The "WBF informs me" definition of "Artificial" in the OP is taken directly from the Definitions section of the 2007 Laws and obviously has application to any use of the term "Artificial" within the Laws and also, it seems, in the application of German alerting regulations. My view on your three examples: 1. A puppet response of 2♦ to 2♣ in a two-way checkback auction 2♦ does not convey a willingness to play in ♦ so the call is artificial. 2. Accepting a transfer to 2♥ where the acceptance denies a super-accept. The negative inference that the 1NT opener only has 2 or 3 ♥ is not something that would be taken for granted by players generally so 2♥ conveys information as to either or both of the strength or ♥ length in opener's hand so the call is artificial. 3. A Walsh 1♦ response to 1♣ denying a four card major unless game-forcing Similar to (2), 1♦ conveys a huge amount of additional information about responder's hand that would not be taken for granted by players who did not know your were using that treatment so it's artificial. It's not clear to me whether you think the definition of "artificial" is ridiculous or the German alerting regulations that are tied to it are; but these three examples are unambiguously artificial calls.

I'm guessing there was a ♦ lead and continuation and the ♣ loser went on a long ♦. Not entirely unreasonable. As for the ruling, table result stands. The MI didn't impact on any decision NS made and East didn't take advantage of the UI from the MI.

The WBF alerting requirements tie back to "conventional" calls, not "artificial" calls. In each of the three examples you have given, the calls in question have "special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners" which are required to be disclosed in the manner prescribed by your SO pursuant to Law 40(b). In WBF events they would all be alertable under the "conventional" or "special meaning" principle, failing which the WBF also has the catch-all guideline in the preamble of "alert whenever there is doubt".

Not putting a suit that could be mistaken as trumps in the right-hand column in a NT contract is legal as it doesn't carry information with it and I must admit that I've always been in the habit of doing that myself. Always placing the lead suit in the right-hand column would be in breach of Law 43c as it's an illegal communication to declarer as to which suit was lead; particularly if you have actually discussed your dummy arrangement agreements with your partner. To avoid any suggestions of illegal communication, I think the best practice is to order your suits randomly (with or without avoiding potential attempted ruffs in a no-trump contract) or do something consistent like putting the suits in rank order or alternating colours (the latter is what I sometimes do, but I think I lean towards random).

Can't some examples be posted sans usernames and with a pip or two changed? Perhaps it's because I rarely play with or against people I don't know, but I've never suspect an opponent of cheating on BBO and I'd be interested to see what sort of things go on.

I realise that it's possible to self-kibitz on a mobile phone or via an internet connection other than your primary one, but how about something like an amber dot next to your name to indicate that somebody with the same IP address is either kibitzing or playing at the same table or the other table in a teams match? Of course it could be quite innocent, such as family members watching or playing with each other from different PCs on the same LAN, but I think it's fair enough to have to disclose that you are doing that.

My jurisdiction, Australia, has a specific regulation that deals with this situation quite nicely: 7.7 If you know that partner’s call is alertable but you have forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless alert. If asked, explain that you have forgotten the meaning. The Director should be called immediately. His normal action would be to send you away from the table and have your partner explain the meaning of the call. If I was the forgetful one (or hadn't committed the convention card to memory in a new partnership) I would alert in the usual way and, if asked, I would say "let me just think about this for a moment" and if the asker then sought to "unask" the question, I wouldn't proffer any additional information or advice (such as have a look at what the convention card says) but I would immediately call the TD and ask if I could speak privately with him as I would be reluctant to overtly provide UI to partner that I have forgotten the agreement. My expectation is that the TD would then send me away from the table for my partner to provide an explanation of what our "partnership agreement" is about the call in question. I don't think it's legal to ask an opponent to not answer question once it has been asked, although if a situation arises where you feel that in muddy waters the opponents are likely to be giving themselves more useful information than you are likely to get, calling the TD is the best course of action and then politely ask your opponent to wait until the TD gets here before answering the question further. An alternative explanation, if my brain was working fast enough to quickly realise that I hadn't read the relevant section on the convention card, would be, "we didn't specifically discuss this but I'm fairly sure we have something down on our convention card that I can't immediately recall so we should get the director ... director please!".

Has anyone checked what the Laws say about this issue? I'm not aware of any provisions in the Laws which allow a player to "unask" a question. Once a question is asked, Law 20F tells us that a reply should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question "about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding".

I think what happened on the other side of the screen is irrelvant. All that matters is whether or not on the South-East side of the screen a BIT was noticed and, under the prevailing regulations, whether or not it was >20 seconds. Although, the regulations here only say that such a BIT is not considered "significant" which isn't the same thing as saying such a BIT is to be ignored. I've seen a number of rulings and appeals for BIT situations with screens where "insignificant" BITs have still been treated as UI. Another factor here is that from the perspective of the South-East side of the screen, it may well have been West in the tank over whether to bid the obstructionist 3♥, make some sort of game try or jump to 4♥ even. Accordingly, South oculd quite easily argue that he wasn't in possession of any UI.

It looks to me like the break-in-tempo is not an agreed fact so the TD needs to resolve that issue first taking account of local regulations for screens which often stipulate that there's presumed to be no BIT if the tray comes back within x seconds. In the EBU that figure is 20 seconds and the EBU also has "hot seat" provisions which may come into play here. It's a point in favour of East-West that attention was first drawn to the BIT by East and North also seems to have admitted that his pass was out of tempo as he'd queried 3♥ and contemplated bidding 4♣, but I think south's second double is sufficiently clear-cut that pass wouldn't be a logical alternative even if the BIT had been a minute.