Shrike

The encrypted bids above are legal in the ACBL, including under the General Chart: from "ALLOWED" "Responses and Rebids" under the GC: "7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opener's second call." (emphasis in original)

The rules provide for a lead penalty in the event a major penalty card is on the table. That's what happened. It is entirely within the spirit of the game to follow the rules and expect the statutory penalty to be imposed.

Opposite a mini notrump my course as North is a little simpler: 1NT (P) 6D (all pass) All right, maybe a bit much. I don't think there's a realistic way to get there, but how about: P-1D (2C) X-3C 3NT-4NT 6NT

I think this one's a fit jump. No justification other than (1) this approach seems to work (but the sample size is small for this auction and those like it) and (2) this hand is very hard to show otherwise, and I sure want to. The diamond suit will provide tricks if partner fits, and that's what matters. We can find control later if he's interested. Partner will always have one honor when he gets excited -- if my diamonds were fabulous I'd bid differently. It is reasonable to play transfer advances after overcalls of weak 2's, and that would add another option. If you did use them, I suggest that the hand above would become a normal fit jump -- with great spades and a good diamond suit, you would transfer to spades and rebid diamonds, and with great diamonds and adequate spades, you'd bid diamonds first.

Why are so many posters addressing the wrong question? He didn't ask whether you would have bid as he did. I would not alert; I believe this preempting style is not sufficiently unusual that opponents need to be warned. Note also that, as has already been observed, if partner doesn't know you bid like this, an alert is not only not required, it would be inappropriate. In ACBL land, it has been noted that there is no rule against bidding this way. Particularly aggressive preempts (with "highly unusual or unexpected" shape or strength) do need to be alerted; I don't think this qualifies, and if I were the one called to your table you'd be fine. But I know some TDs who might well rule otherwise.

Unfortunately, McBruce has quoted a version of the Laws that is no longer in effect. In 1997, the word "reasonably" in Law 16 ("could reasonably have been suggested") was changed to "demonstrably." The change was intended to ensure that, for there to be an adjustment, there be a close connection between the UI and the action complained of -- a simple bridge argument, not something subtle and complex. A similar change was made to Law 73F. In my opinion, under the Laws now in effect the original posting is not an easy case. Assuming arguendo that a hesitation was unmistakeable and that no other reason (red dot, e.g.) appeared, East had UI -- but what did it demonstrably suggest? Clearly partner had a problem, but that problem was not necessarily whether to raise. Double is pretty obviously not allowable -- it caters to all of the problem hands that partner is now more likely than before his hesitation to hold. 4D, on the other hand, is not so obvious; it will not fare well when partner was considering a bid in spades or clubs. If I were the director I think I would disallow 4D, because much of the time that partner tanks it is with good diamonds (in practice it's always good offense, maybe not a big diamond fit on this hand), but I could possibly be convinced otherwise. Hence, I think that a decision either way on this one is supportable, if not necessarily best. As a corollary to the decision's being at least arguably close, very few TDs would consider a penalty under Law 73. (These are imposed quite rarely.) On the other hand, under the old Laws I think an adjustment would have been clearer, because the connection is strong enough to satisfy the "reasonably suggested" test without too much argument.

Given no unusual agreements (of which Rubensohl is one possibility), I would assume in the US that Texas transfers are on in competition with any partner who plays them at all. How high? I would assume transfers over interference through 3D, though many (especially less experienced, in my experience) players play them higher -- perhaps as high as 4C (though I believe this to be a very bad idea -- anything above 3H gets in the way of important natural bids). The decision should not be affected by the 1NT bid's being an overcall, not an opening. In a usual, intermediate-plus partnership desk partnership in the US, I would assume Texas through 3D, and Lebensohl (fast denies). South would then probably bid 3S, although 4H is not ridiculous.

A small point: 2C weak with clubs may be abnormal and unfamiliar, but it is also natural, regardless what anyone's used to. This semantic difference may have been part of the problem at the table; many people assume that "natural" means "normal," but it doesn't. The pair playing the unusual (and unusually natural) system certainly didn't conduct themselves well. However, if the chat logs shown here are correct the director seems to have made little effort to determine the nature of the problem and of the system the pair were playing, so the after-the-fact complaint isn't surprising. The SAYC card was the biggest part of the problem, but it appears the TD launched into an accusation of dishonesty without much warrant, particularly considering the expression of surprise about the SAYC card from one of the players concerned. I'll speculate that a lightning-quick adjustment without such an accusation wouldn't have raised the ire that this conversation did. I assume (hope) that if the TD had understood the system that was being played, and that no deception was intended, the pair would have been permitted to continue to play the natural system (with a corrected convention card). To ban a natural system, even if it is unfamiliar, strikes me as a very bad idea for a tournament that permits a multitude of systems (I assume this one did), even though it is within the TD's power.

Hog, you're right that the 2C bid is natural. You're also right that anyone who has played against a strong club will know what it means. And you're right that the opponents were probably fussing over nothing, even if it's technically an alertable bid -- they probably knew, and even if not were probably not damaged. However. . . some people have not played against precision. If the opps were new, they are entitled to an alert of a sequence that to them probably (depending on what they're familiar with, I know, but let's guess it's not precision) sounded weaker than a GF. An alert seems not only potentially helpful, but appropriate; I think it should be required. Under ACBL rules, in case that's what the opps thought applied (wrongly, if so), the bid is definitely alertable, as are all other responses to a precison club. Reason: though natural (they show length and/or strength in the suit bid), they are of a strength that is "highly unusual or unexpected." I know, it's not unexpected to a non-novice in the context of a strong club opening, provided the opps are familiar with such auctions, but that's not how it's decided.

What's legal in f2f bridge is highly relevant to most posters on this board. It is far less practical to go to the considerable effort to learn (much less design) a system if that system will be unusable in some or all of the offline competition that the player faces. You say this doesn't matter to you; good for you. But most people who post on here seem to be concerned with offline bridge as well; it seems that most play at least some offline bridge in events that limit conventions. The discussion of those regulations does not block discussion of systems per se, it enhances it by rendering it more practically applicable. Oh, and next time you "try to avoid being rude," (your words) maybe you shouldn't follow someone else's perfectly acceptable and pertinent question with what appears to be a curt dismissal, in boldfaced type.

I believe that it is possible to answer this question definitively. But not now. Unlike Misho (sorry, Misho, if I've misinterpreted), I believe that no first-principles analysis of systems will tell which is better -- they must be tested against each other, in play, for many thousands of hands. We must correct for player experience and judgement, and control (no, not eliminate) such variables as deviations and outright psyches. Then, we should compare the results achieved at the table (we don't care about the par contract or double-dummy defense). I think it is clear that this test cannot rely on humans -- too many extraneous, uncontrollable variables. When (no, not if) computers can be taught to bid as well as humans in all respects, and when they can be taught to do so in any system we can come up with, THEN we'll know which system is best in theory. Yes, I agree this ability is quite a ways beyond our current grasp. After that, we program in a certain realistic probaility of misunderstandings and memory lapses for each call, as a function of the complexity of the system, frequency of the situation, similarity to other situations, intuitivenesss of the meaning. . . Now rerun the test, and we find out which system ought to be best in practice. Notice that the test needs to pit each system against each other system. It is possible that we'll discover that system power is not an easily characterizable function (e.g., suppose 2/1 beats Regres, and Regres beats Moscito, but Moscito beats 2/1). What then? Doesn't matter. By then WBF will have mandated 2/1 with whatever gadgets are currently in vogue among bunnies, and no psyches.

Even if 3H shows rather than than asks, this sort of tactical bid in a constructive auction is not much of a psyche. This example illustrates the difficulty inherent in banning psyches -- it's pretty difficult to define the term. I think I'd have won the first trick with the king, though.

Thanks for bringing this up (in both forums). I have been sloppy about this, claiming quickly and often. This is not the best way to win. Hereafter, in serious matches I will not claim, and will instruct my teammates not to do so, unless a slow-play penalty looms. (This policy doesn't work well in pair games, of course, where you want your opponents to be LESS tired when they face their next opponents, against whom your results are being scored.) It is apparent that this is legal; I am convinced that it is therefore ethical.

I don't know that you're going to plan the play in detail -- too much reacting to the defense. I agree with Fluffy et al about leading a club to the 9 at trick 2, but also agree that LHO's manner may tell you this was not the most solid double in the world -- now lead to the jack. The bidding may not be perfect, but without special agreements it is fine. Yes, you have game in hearts, but 760 will outscore that. If the double was really ill-advised, 1160 is possible. Note that some people play that the double of Stayman shows cards, not clubs; not a great idea over a strong notrump, but it's possible. Definitely ask the question.

Yes he does. Yes, BBO as an entity does. You don't like this policy (which there is no evidence is what is being enforced. . .). You think it's unfair. Great; say so. But don't claim that they don't have the "right" to do it, when it is clear that, legally and morally, they do. They asked what we thought. We responded to the poll. The decision was made. Now relax, and go play bridge.

Oh, all right. So now we need to get you that star. Fred, or anyone else of that caliber: any room for Aisha on your next Spingold or Vanderbilt team? Please?

I think you'd have a hard time showing that it is the ACBL's position that slow players should be accomodated. The circumstance you describe -- players pushing ahead of the scheduled changes -- has nothing to do with playing slowly, it is about playing quickly (and some other things). Actual slow play is the scourge of a TD's existence, in the ACBL as (I suspect) everywhere else. I cannot remember a tournament (I directed ACBL f2f tourneys for a few years) when slow play was not the subject of discussion among the directors; I cannot remember fast play being cited as a problem even once. There is no question that controlling slow play is difficult, even when the players are right in front of you. Even in the fast pairs at NABC's, a 5-minute-per-board event, slow players enter and do what you'd expect -- they play slowly. (I once played in the fast pairs with a partner who needed a smoking break pretty much every round; we just about managed it, but sometimes we came up against pairs whom even we couldn't catch up.) Until the sanctioning bodies are willing to slap penalties on slow players early and often -- and we know that will not happen -- players will continue to behave as if it is their right to spend just as much time as is allotted to everyone else, plus two minutes. As directors, we recognize this, but that doesn't mean we're accomodating it.

Tell you what: I promise to treat you like a star. I will watch you with bated breath. (Um, I mean I'll watch your bridge plays with. . . oh, you know what I mean.) I will speak in hushed tones of your successes. I will shake my head in wonderment when you do something amazing. So, does this mean I can have your phone number?

Changing the subject a little -- how many of these players have y'all played against (in person)? I'm sure Fred and the like have faced them all, but what about us regular folks, who aren't normally competing in rarefied air? I have played against at least one member of twelve of those pairs.

It seems to me that this discussion is proceeding under the assumption that mishovnbg is right about "encrypted" bids, however defined, are disallowed. But I don't think he is right. Unfortunately, I have lost the link to the WBF systems pamphlet, but I can tell you that bids as described by Flame would be legal in the ACBL, even under the General Chart, and legal in the EBU under Class 2 (if I read the latter correctly). In each of these jurisdictions there is essentially no restriction on the meaning of second- and later-round bids. If these bids really are restricted, could somebody show me where? Now, this doesn't mean it's a good idea to play this way (but my opinion is that it merits consideration), just that you may if you wish. Encrypted (defensive carding) signals are disallowed in all ACBL events, which is a pity for the tinkerers.

There was an official WBF statement a while back (sorry, I can't find it or state the exact context) that to pass with a ten count (actually, I think it may have been nine) after partner opened and RHO bid one notrump was "unacceptable" (I think this was the word used). I believe there's at least a good chance that in the psyche-hating EBU they'd rule this one red under 6.2 without more -- the auction is prima facie evidence of a CPU of some sort. Essentially, under the WBF dictum and what I believe to be normal practice, pass is not considered a logical alternative in this circumstance. Can't be sure, I'm not EBU, but that's the impression I get about the way things work there. (Exception: different ruling if the TD determines that the opponents play an unusual (but unalerted) system or that they are absolute beginners.) If this one came to me at an ACBL tournament, I would ask some pointed questions but wouldn't do anything else if they said the right things and nothing else weird came up. Officialdom is careful not to use the C-word when ruling on psyches, but essentially a rule like EBU's is an admission that they can't prove cheating directly, so they'll infer it under some circumstances. I don't think that's appropriate on line, even though it's easier to cheat and hard to prove it -- maybe this proves my position is inconsistent. (Well, not really inconsistent, because I think the EBU position is misguided; might suggest it's untenable, though.)

The psyche would be "red" in the EBU, meaning it would earn the pair a 30% matchpoint score, if I understand their regs. In other jurisdictions it would merit suspicion, but no automatic sanction. Wihthout evidence of a CPU (more evidence than just the auction and lead on this deal, IMO), there has been no provable violation.

As noted, when a cuebid could show an ace or a king, or when it is known to be first round control but could be a void, the information from Blackwood/RKC is not redundant. There is no real reason not to give it, because there is always plenty of room as long as your ace-asking bid is the first step above 4 of the trump suit (kickback). Also, note that a fair number of experts use 4NT (or its equivalent) as declarative-interrogative, not keycard, in some cuebidding auctions.

My own rule for forcing passes, which is not optimal but is easily conveyed to and remebered by partner (probably the only part of my card that satisfies this condition): 1. Pass is forcing if we have established a trump fit and that we have the balance of strength; and 2. Pass is forcing if we have established that we have high card values sufficient for a normal 3NT, with or without a fit. (Note that we concede large numbers now and then.) Here, I agree with those who argue that the vulnerability establishes that condition 1 applies; otherwise, it wouldn't. Or I don't think it would. I ask my partners never to consider vulnerability in determining whether pass is forcing, but this hand probably shows why that's a bad appraoch. Here, it's hard to imagine that condition 1 doesn't apply, but it's hard to prove. Regardless, I'm bidding 6H. Partner should carry on to seven with two aces. One ace will not be enough for him to move even if it's clubs, because he knows I don't have a spade void (I didn't bid 5S). If he has the spade void and the club ace, we'll miss it. Sigh.

Today, f2f, I took a director call reporting a psyche. I asked whether there was any reason to believe the psycher's partner knew of the psyche. "No." Did psycher's partner take any action that seemed to be based on a concealed partnership understanding? "No." then you called me because. . . ? "I just wanted to report it." Players think that the director needs to be informed that someone has played bridge at their table. That's all the calls in luke warm's post mean, I think.