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.

Hence the repeated use of 'logical alternative'. I'm willing to admit I draw really hard lines on this, but at no point do I say "I think it's 100% from AI that I can wake up and play bridge now, but I'm not going to do it". I like to think I play within your second-to-last sentence. I'll admit what I consider "logical" may be different from what others consider "logical". I don't really think that's dumping, I think it just means I'm willing to believe partner psyched and the opponents are insane before I'm willing to believe partner forgot an agreement. If partner forgets an agreement, we probably shouldn't be playing it. My name isn't Martin.

Well, yeah, but only when it doesn't come up against ethics, right? Otherwise, people would just ignore all the ethical trapping and then let the director sort every hand out (I know PPs are supposed to deal with this idea, but I have never seen a PP given out in my district, even though I have seen (different) people swear repeatedly and offensively at their partners and teammates, accuse my teammates of cheating, challenge my teammates to a physical fight, throw a chair, and throw their convention card and pens across the room towards other tables). I have seen them given out at nationals, but sadly nationals are only three times a year. So in the rare but not once-in-a-blue-moon situations where I think ethics comes into it, I move the ethics part above the "play to win" part. My opponents might get a 100% board instead of an 80% board; it's worth it for me to be able to sleep at night and to deter similar situations that keep me from playing to win at all times from happening in the future. I'm willing to talk about this more, because I think there's a fine line. I've also noticed I play better when I concentrate really hard on every hand, but that sometimes leaves me with an unpleasant headache. Actually (not being sarcastic) curious how that goes with "expected to play to win", too. My guess is that I'm supposed to get better enough at bridge that I can do the concentrating without the headache at the end of it.

FYI, posted a poll on bridgewinners using a hand close to the one in my example. Not trying to make any sort of point by bringing it back here, and certainly don't expect that sacrificing will get much of the vote. Genuinely curious to see what people think.

I'm pretty sure I wrote 'logical', not something in all caps, but I can check... Edit: although my partners probably would say I am on another planet, so the wording is apt :)

I mean, I don't care if you're laughing or not. According to the authorities, you can't discuss that psyches are more likely white on red than red on white either, even though we'd probably agree that's GBK. I don't think this hush-hush relationship with the word 'psyche' is any good, I think it's designed for the protection of the majority of the ACBL who don't want to deal with the possibility of someone ever psyching against them, even though it would likely be a compliment. FWIW I'm not trying to invoke Mike Flader as an "I'm right, you're wrong" name, I'm just trying to explain what I know about this in the context of the ACBL. I'll try to put what I'm saying on more personal and less argumentative terms: if I sit down with Stolid McNeverpsyches, who always has his bid, and I'm in an auction where it's totally obvious that either one of us has forgotten our agreements or Stolid has psyched, and I think that assuming he has psyched will get me a worse score, I am going to assume it. And if that gets me a better score and gets adjusted, I'm not going to argue with it. I wouldn't fault anyone for taking a less hard line, the reason I take it is precisely because the ACBL won't discuss anything of this except to say "Oh, no, you can't talk about these things with anyone!" Bull - I try to play ethically at all times, and sometimes that includes taking into account the possibility that partner doesn't in fact have his bid.

To give an example hand for the one above: if you pick up x Jxxxx QTxxx xx and partner opens 1NT (15-17), you bid 2♦ (forgetting it is natural), partner passes it, and the opponents come into the auction in spades, I think you should feel ethically compelled to consider sacrificing - and possibly elect to do so, especially if you think it is worse than sitting - over basically any number of spades they bid. After all, partner doesn't have a 15-17 NT, he has a hand that was willing to play 2♦ opposite an unlimited hand. Whether partner has ever psyched before or not, surely it's not 100% that this is NOT a time he has chosen to do so.

I don't think that way. I try to handle these things as if it were behind screens, but if I perceive I have more than one logical alternative to a call I err heavily on the side of making sure my side gets a ridiculously bad result, because I think that is the most positive EV in the long run with respect to 'number of times my partnerships forget their conventions', and I think when we forget our conventions we should be punished. The game is not fun if you ever have to think to yourself "We have an agreement, but I have forgotten / don't remember what it is", and it's not fun when your opponents have this happen. I don't see why we would allow anyone to wake up in an auction that could be a psych as long as there is a nonzero percent chance his or her partner has psyched. To anyone who says "My partner never psyches, he/she has promised me he won't, etc:" I have it from Mike Flader that that is not a legal agreement or discussion, just like you can't promise you won't psych against beginners. For full disclosure on my part: the number of times my partners have psyched in the last, oh, 300 sessions I've played: 0. (Edit: ACBL-land, not sure about other jurisdictions obviously). (Second edit: read this before your post Rik; no aggression intended towards you and your partner, I'm just trying to play a hard line on this because I'm curious).

Question along these lines (brought up by Justin Lall in a similar thread): suppose our agreements are that over 1NT, 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ are natural and non-forcing. I forget this agreement and think we are playing transfers. I pick up a hand with five hearts. Partner opens 1NT, I bid 2♦, and partner passes. Shouldn't my first thought be "Oh, that idiot psyched a 1NT bid with long diamonds", not "Of course, I've forgotten the system"? In this auction maybe it's impossible to believe partner has psyched (he wouldn't run until he was doubled). But how far do we take the 'behind screens' thing? What if partner says "3NT is to play" and then bids 4♣? I guess my point is that I think catering to psyches should be mandated before 'waking up'. The last time partner had a misunderstanding and I thought it was clear from the auction at about the 4-level I drove him all the way to 7♠x anyway. At teams. Solves the misunderstanding problem pretty quick, if not the partnership harmony problem.

I'll bite. This is a theoretical question, so please no "Get a new partner, WTP" posts. You and your partner, in ACBL-land, have agreed that your weak 2s have a 5-10 HCP range and may be on a bad five-card suit. You pre-alert the latter, as you must. Suppose you know your partner has (silently) labeled everyone in the room as 'good' or 'bad'. Against good pairs, he likes creating confusion, so his weak 2s have consistently been no better than Jxxxx with enough quacks to get to five or six points - regardless of seat or vulnerability. Against bad pairs, he wishes to bid descriptively and double them when they go wrong, so his weak 2s have been no worse than AKxxxx and a guarded outside Q - regardless of seat or vulnerability. Sure, this means partner doesn't think AQJxxx x Jxxx xx is a weak 2 bid at any colors - I didn't say his likes and dislikes were winning bridge. You've never discussed these facts, but it's become very apparent to you (perhaps you met partner at the desk at the beginning of a long tournament and are now stuck with him?) 1. Legal or not? (Not as interested in the awful ethical implications - I wouldn't play with a partner who did this, which would solve them for me, but that's not the point of the problem). 2. A pair unknown to you sits down. Partner opens 2H red on white in first seat and RHO asks you about your general preempting tendencies. How do you disclose? 3. Same as #2, but now the pair is known to you (such that you are confident you know which bin partner puts them in). How do you disclose?

Again, I was declarer. I don't know where the idea of dummy asking came into this, but if it was something I wrote that was unclear please tell me so that I may reword it / be more careful in the future. I appreciate the answers - it was unclear to me where the limitations came in here had they neglected a defense. Unfortunately we are often in a situation like this playing a strong diamond system. If partner opens 1♦ and righty doubles, the meaning of our redouble depends upon the meaning of double (it is one thing if X shows diamonds, another if X shows the majors, and a third if X shows general values/takeout of diamonds - all three of which people have played against us without discussion. We do pre-alert the strong diamond but many pairs decline to discuss a defense). In this case we were able to get out of it okay, although partner's pass over the double would have had a different meaning if it had been known to be, say, suction.