gartinmale

http://tinyurl.com/m3bd595 has the full hand. Forgive the bidding, I was screwing around in a non-ACBL tournament. Regardless, GIB probably shouldn't have let this through (it even got the ending wrong since I had previously bid 2!d).

Depends on how long you're here - for a large field with good players, your best bet is the Sunday afternoon game at the Chicago Bridge Center (900 N. Franklin, Suite 407). If you can only play weeknights then you're stuck with the Thursday night game (not a bad field, but kind of small and a bit slow - same address). If you're willing to travel a bit outside Chicago proper (e.g. Skokie) there are a couple of decent games Wednesday and Friday nights.

The IHouse game no longer exists (and hasn't for at least 15 years I think). The University has an open game Wednesday nights while school is in session but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to everyone (fun and a lot of good young players...but also ACBL superchart, board time limits as in Fast Pairs, self-enforcement of active ethics including defensive tempo, no guaranteed partners). Again, sort of depends what one is looking for.

I live in Chicago. Can you narrow down what you're looking for in a bridge club a bit more (day of week/time of day/demographics/size / importance of hand records/bridgemates/good director / strength of field)?

At the risk of sounding even more obnoxious (I promise I am not a jerk about any of this at the actual table, but this is a Laws forum), why is that not reasonable?

I don't see how that makes a difference. The Alert Chart dictates what is alertable, not the card. Of course we alert (or announce) all of them. I don't think I've demonstrated that we misunderstand the penalty double at all (we even alert it, and I can tell you what our follow-ups are / when we are in a force / what it means if they redouble / what strength is required). I admit that I thought that SAYC defaulted to penalty doubles. If anything this strengthens my overall point (if you agree to play something you should know what it means - therefore agreeing to play penalty doubles and discussing the follow-ups is the right treatment, and agreeing 'SAYC' is not). Before my partner and I decided to play the Yellow Card as we understood it we had lengthy discussions about the treatments on it.

Well, I stand corrected then. Good thing we've been alerting them. Not sure whether I want to play SAYC if I have to play takeout doubles... I don't think this invalidates any of my concerns about system ramifications/disclosure though (given that we certainly know how to alert and disclose the meaning of non-standard penalty doubles) -- probably only my credibility when it comes to knowing SAYC. So what are you deemed to be playing if you agree SAYC but don't check the boxes? It can't be takeout, since otherwise you'd check them...

The Yellow Card at my club (granted the same one that penalizes for not having matching convention cards, so perhaps I shouldn't trust it) has "takeout of weak 2s/3s" as checkable boxes. I'll see if I can drudge up a copy. Edit: see this link. Note the unchecked boxes under takeout of weak 2s/3s. You were saying? Second edit: I find it entirely believable that the ACBL contradicts itself on this. Shouldn't that be even *more* reason to want people to know their agreements? And yes, there's a bit of self-mockery in the previous post - after all, it doesn't really annoy me when beginners mess up their (non)-agreements, or when experts don't have room in a crowded slam auction. It does, however, piss me off when the rest of us (myself included) demand to play so many different conventions and then fail to discuss them. What gives us the right to add yes, even takeout doubles without understanding their basic follow-ups?

Heh. How far do we take this argument? I'd hope at least that everyone can agree the game is better when people know their agreements.

I'm in the punishment camp. The game becomes completely joyless for me when I don't know what is going on because they don't know what is going on. It has nothing to do with whether I get a good result or not. I would happily give up all good boards that result from MI and so forth in return for not having to play against forgetful or unprepared opponents. Why should I have to suffer because you and your partner thought some unnecessary convention was so critical to having a good bridge game that you adopted it, but failed to discuss its applications or ramifications? Why should the board be ruined, subject to MI, or subject to UI because you need all these fancy conventions to play bridge, but don't know if you play support doubles over 1C (P) 1D (1H)? If Puppet is on after 2!c followed by a 2NT rebid? If Puppet is on if we double your 2NT for penalty? If you play the same NT defense in direct and balancing seat? If after 1NT (2!c) X the asking call is XX or 2!d still - or if 2!d says you have a diamond suit? If your NT systems are on over all 2!c interference or just artificial 2!c interference? If lebensohl over weak 2s is only by an unpassed hand or by all hands? If 4!c over Flannery is RKCG or not? If 1!c (1!h) 1!s (P) 4!c still shows clubs and spades even with the interference, or just lots of clubs? If (1!d) X (1!h) X is penalty or your version of "responsive"? If you play Namyats in all four seats or just the first two? If (1!s) P (P) 2!s is Michaels or a strong hand? If you don't know whether (1!d!) 2!d is natural or Michaels over a 0+ 1!d opening, even though you play CRASH over a strong club (but naturally have not discussed it beyond agreeing that you play CRASH)? In ACBL-land, I would be in favor of (say) a full board penalty the first time a sufficiently experienced pair forgets or misrepresents their agreements and disqualification from the event the second time, and immediate disqualification for any opponents who do not call the director when a pair forgets their agreements. Don't want to risk this? Play SAYC. Theoretically your opponents must know SAYC (since if they lose a convention card or don't have two matching convention cards you can force them to play it - yes, this has happened to me, and we deserved it for only having one complete card between the two of us), so they are not going to be inconvenienced by your agreements then. And yes, I play a number of highly artificial systems, with tons of pages of system notes and meta-rules that attempt to cover unfamiliar situations, and painstaking disclosure. But I'd give them up too if it meant I didn't have to run into one more "We have an agreement, but I don't know what it is". I'd rather my partner revoke twenty times a session. And I also play SAYC, straight down the middle of the card, including (3H) X! as penalty. For the "we don't want to alienate beginners/novices" camp: I agree completely. But there is an easy solution: don't play all of this crap. It probably isn't helping your game overall anyway.

Yes, but this forum is the only place in the world I know where I can get insight into this (besides with my similarly-inclined friends and partners). There's nowhere else like it. I think the ethical/philosophical parts of bridge are incredibly interesting, almost as much as the play. I emailed this problem to a friend of mine asking what bids he would even briefly consider (with all alerts, so not posed as a UI problem), and he replied 3D cue, 3S demanding a cue, 4NT Blackwood, 5C psych exclusion. I may be completely insane but I am not alone. I thought about mentioning 5♣ exclusion as well, but the problem is that they may double you in 5♣, and then you will get out of it.

To try to give an extreme example: suppose partner opens 1♠ and I hold AQJx AKQ AKQx xx. I bid 2♣, which in our agreements is a game-forcing spade raise with 4+ pieces, but partner has forgotten, because he normally plays that 2♣ is natural, forcing one round, and game-forcing unless the suit is rebid or spades are raised. Partner doesn't alert and rebids 2♠. Certainly there are a number of bids one might make here. 3♦ cue, 4NT Blackwood, 3♠ demanding a cue all seem like possibilities. The last one will work out poorly when partner passes it. But I would absolutely feel ethically compelled to consider bidding 3♣, which partner is also almost certainly going to pass, likely missing our cold slam or grand and not even playing in the right strain. Why is 3♣ a LA to whatever other bids? Well, I've psyched a cuebid before. This seems like an idiotic time to do that, but I'm certainly capable of being an idiot. How do I know I wouldn't have the urge to do that now if there was no UI from the lack of alert? I don't. If I went down this road I would try to consider if there were other LAs that might be even less suggested than 3♣. There are benefits to playing 3♣ here when cold for 7NT. We are less likely to forget our methods in the future, and I get to sleep soundly at night.

No, and when I can accurately rank LAs at the table by "percent suggested by UI" in some manner other than "likely outcome" I'll get back to you. But if I consider options A, B, and C to all be LAs, and C definitely will lead to the worst result, I believe it is both best for the partnership in the long run and most ethically sound to pick C. And I don't accept that it falls into the pit of 'not trying to win the board'. I am always choosing something that I think will be a logical alternative, and I am trying to choose the one that is least suggested by the UI - if I know C hugely increases the chances I will go for 1100 on a partscore hand, it can't possibly be more suggested by the UI than A or B where I may end up +50, may end up -150, may end up -500, etc. The law doesn't prohibit players from being idiots, and I'm perfectly capable of being an idiot without UI. If something is an LA, it's an LA. It means I or one of my peers might actually choose it, without any malicious intent.

Hasn't happened yet. But we all forget our agreements less frequently... Edit: my partners are encouraged to do the same thing (but of course, only selecting from what they genuinely perceive to be logical alternatives, as do I). What I'm trying to get at is that I often find there is a call that I think is a logical alternative that will work out really poorly, and then I take that one. Others may not actually come up with the same logical alternatives that I do; that's fine, I'm not judging anyone but myself and I don't have to live with anyone but myself. I once played a session with a partner who got annoyed at himself over a minor error and deliberately swung (complete top-or-bottom) the next 12 boards. We finished the session with a 29%. I am not exaggerating when I say that I would rather play with him (and still do, although I had a careful conversation after he had calmed down to try to discover if he was not 'trying to win') than with someone who more than once in a blue moon forgets an agreement.

1. Not me. 3. Run. 4. If the field is opening this 1NT, I will reopen. If they are also playing a 12-14 NT, then I will pass. 5. 1C. 6. Heart. Thinking about the others.