epeeist

Although I like the default cc's, I had a bad experience in one ACBL (individual) tournament. The opponents had the default sayc convention card open, so I (naturally, and I thought excusably) assumed 3 ♣ after 2NT was Stayman (that's how it's defined in the ACBL SAYC booklet, and his p thought so too, bidding 3♦ response). Unfortunately, 3♣ was natural, showing a 7-card suit which ended up running in 7NT redoubled. Of course, in all honesty I couldn't be sure whether I would have doubled if I'd thought 3♣ was natural and not Stayman, and was not granted an adjustment (I had 8 HCP and good major suits, so thought grand slam in NT unlikely to make). Of course, opponents played slowly and I was foolish enough to complain about this resulting in "ave -", which got corrected to 7NT redoubled making...at IMPs... :lol:

As to your question, if you go to the tournament page and look at "tournament rules" (i.e. those applicable to all BBO tournaments), it mentions in one paragraph if in doubt alert, what is "standard" in one part of the world may not be in another, etc. Mind you, I rarely find opps doing this in practice... :lol: I probably fall short myself. My own pet peeve is those who fail to alert 4NT. First, in some sequences it's unclear to me whether it's a quantitative raise or blackwood (and, it's almost always blackwood but not alerted, I have to ask for an explanation). Second, even if alerted, or even if answer "blackwood", about half the time I have to waste time inquiring whether it's standard or rkc blackwood (and whether 0314 or 1430) -- I'm entitled to know, and to understand how many aces or keycards, respectively have been signalled. But unless I ask, I almost NEVER see that information volunteered. I can't assume, just because e.g. one opp's profile says rkcb, that they're using it -- because a fair proportion of the time, I've found opps using conventions that "contradict" what their profiles say.

Thanks for the info, uday.

So long as people are told ahead of time (in tournament description or rules) I have no problem with logging private chat (in tournaments only, not sure whether I agree with doing so in MBC), so long as after some set period of time it gets deleted by BBO (unless needed to resolve a complaint). I've never received any private chat which I thought was abusive or otherwise worth reporting (I have had some from opponents that led me to set them as "enemies" but that was it... :) ). Contrariwise, I don't think I've ever said something to opponents that I'd be worried or afraid of having logged. A few attempts at unfunny jokes, maybe, but that's it. But if I did ever receive abusive chat, it would be nice to have had it logged. Closest I ever came to needing it was in situation I described a while back about an amusing TD call (I privately chatted to my opponents to clarify what my alerted bid meant, they thought it was public telling my p what my bid meant). But if the situation had been different, e.g. opps claimed my description of bid wrong, it would have been nice to be able to cite my private chat and what I'd said.

I've sent you an e-mail with, as best as I can remember, which TD it was. I had no problem or difficulty with the TD, who was friendly and polite in response to my question, I was just seeking clarification (and waiting for the ACBL's response to uday :) ) because it was the first online ACBL tournament I'd seen that warning in.

Humorous reply followed by more serious (and unfortunately overlong) reply... :ph34r: With the obvious disclaimer, while I may be expert at some things, bridge is unfortunately not one of them... :angry: "Expert" on BBO, at least, is insufficiently precise, because one who is expert in any one of several disciplines may rate him or herself as "expert", and others don't know which is applicable. For instance, some who rank themselves as experts are: 1. Experts at being rude; 2. Experts at postcognition (knowing what should have been done, but only when it's too late); 3. Experts at shifting blame on to their partner; 4. Experts at overestimating their own skill; or rarely 5. Experts at bidding (not necessarily using partner's system...) or play. :angry: More seriously, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be asking whether "expert" is a description of some absolute level of skill ("knowledge of certain techniques...") or instead a relative level of skill ("top 1% or..."). You can define the term however you want, but I think "expert" normally requires some minimum absolute level of skill. Even the "best" at something might not be an expert. Myself, I don't agree that knowledge of theories and techniques makes one an "expert" at least in respect of playing bridge. An "expert" bridge player has to, most of the time, bid and play well/very well. That's it. Someone who can e.g. analyze hands very well, but isn't a fast enough thinker to bid and play effectively, may be a great analyst, may even be an expert analyst, but is not an expert bridge player. Being an expert bidder or defender, of course, requires that one be "in sync" with one's partner, and have sufficient knowledge of the partnership bidding system and signalling so as to bid and defend effectively -- so it's possible to have an expert pair where neither partner, alone, might be all that special. When it comes to expert declarer play, it's possible to be "expert" without necessarily having a detailed knowledge of systems (except, knowledge of opponent signals may be important), that is, one might be a sort of "instinctual" expert at play, easily visualizing all the hands, etc. Re my point about absolute skill level vs. relative skill level, I'll try to use a real-world analogy. As far as I know, fresco painting (like the Sistine chapel, where one has to paint very quickly I think each section done within 20 minutes while the plaster is still wet) is not much practiced (if at all) today. So it's quite possible, that while there once were expert fresco painters (such as Michaelangelo), that today, even the best living fresco painter might not be an "expert" because he or she is not highly skilled enough to be considered an expert. So I disagree with the top 1%/0.1% criteria for "expert" in most instances -- I think there's some minimum absolute level of skill required to be an "expert".

JRG, I would greatly appreciate it if, when you get your test results back, you could let us know what the "correct" answer was... B) Myself, I can't see how a psych is any more disruptive of a game than, say, accidentally misbidding or forgetting a convention, and people aren't generally penalized a full board (!) for those things (I mean, you're supposed to know and be able to explain your partnership conventions, but the penalties I've seen even in e.g. the NABC casebooks when a partnership forgets are at worst a score adjustment, not a penalty on top of that). Some other interesting points made by various posters, but some are only applicable to partnerships and/or f2f bridge. One poster did suggest that even in an individual, someone who knew you psyched might have you as a p or opponent later in the tournament and would then "know" you were prone to psych, but with respect I think that's possible, but not terribly likely. For all they know, that might have been your first psych in 3 years. As for alerts, much of what was discussed seemed to be with respect to face-to-face games where you alert partner's bids, not the self-alerting BBO system. And self-alerting when you don't need to can arguably be deceptive (e.g. you bid a perfectly sound 3♠ preempt but alert it as "sometimes psych" -- even though you didn't this time -- opponent doubles and his p passes converting double to penalty thinking you're psyching and so you score game). Myself, I rarely if ever psych, so doubt I would ever psych more than once in 12 boards, I just don't like being limited to that when there doesn't seem to be a legal basis for it and when psyches don't seem all that disruptive. People may not like them, but tough. I've occasionally had an opponent make an effective psych against me, and my comment is "good psych". That's it, no whining about it disrupting play when it didn't (I may check that it wasn't an unalerted conventional bid, but that's it).

I agree psyches shouldn't (and by ACBL laws/regulations, CAN'T) be forbidden. Though if the club provided free Nanaimo bars [for those who don't know, that's a type of dessert bar], that would tempt me to overlook my objection... :D But, like TimG with his letter, I always like to have something in writing to substantiate my opinions... ;) So in the highly unusual event I psyche, I'll be prepared for opponent complaints... :P Surprisingly hard for me to find on the ACBL website (well, maybe I was tired... B) ) was the codification which in chapter 12 discusses psychic bids. Link: http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%...Section%20A.pdf or to the codification generally, http://www.acbl.org/about/codification.html#12 It does say that when 3 or more psychic bids in one session come to attention of the director, he or she should investigate the possibility of excessive psyching. It doesn't set 3 as a maximum, or forbid more, it just says investigate. The rest of it seems to make sense to me, e.g. psychic bids intended to improve opponent scores are unsportsmanlike, also a problem if "inspired by a spirit of malicious mischief" etc. (I assume this means, let's say you're having a poor tournament and so decide, who cares, you'll bid weirdly just to annoy everyone). So given these prohibitions, investigating if 3 or more psychic bids seems fine. I was surprised to find psychic artificial openings are prohibited; so I'll have to either include a general qualifier or make sure my description of artificial strong 2♣ opening includes possibility of being based on playing strength rather than points... :) There's something elsewhere in the codification about how a club can choose e.g. to prohibit certain conventions ("tonight is beginner's night, no Byzantine Blackwood"), but since as TimG pointed out psychic bids aren't a convention I can't see how that would apply. Especially since (though harder in face to face bridge) a dishonest player could just claim to have accidentally put the wrong bid card in the box... :P And to reiterate the closing of my first post, there are many (myself unfortunately included) who have on occasion mistakenly made bids so bad and misdescriptive of our hands (often due to forgetting conventions) as to seem like (bad) psychic bids despite lack of such intent... :(

Since some of the discussion seemed to be about breaks in tempo generally (not just the instance given by the original poster), this past thread (involving complaint and discussion of director ruling no problem with delay) might be of interest: http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...?showtopic=3085 In the online setting, there are so many possible sources of delay (most common for me is waiting for some opponents to properly explain what certain bids mean :lol: ), lagtime, real-life intruding, etc. that I can't see any scope for the sort of break in tempo rulings you see in f2f bridge (e.g. "south didn't show 'stop' card when making a skip bid, but despite this according to N/S west waited 20 seconds before bidding, E/W dispute this and said it was at most 10-15 seconds and N/S shouldn't be able to complain since didn't follow recommended practice of showing stop card before making skip bid etc...." or "the tray took 35 seconds to come back from the other side of the screen, and in the situation it was clear that most of the time had been taken by the doubler...").

Playing in an ACBL individual tournament today, one of the announcements (after tournament started) was only 1 psyche per tournament, and you have to inform the TD. Now, as an aside, someone who wants to psyche more often can just claim he or she misclicked. But leaving that for the moment... Informing the TD, no problem, but I asked the TD why only 1 psyche since they're permitted (and in an individual, even lower chance of being "fielded" than in a pairs). The TD said something about in a normal match only 2 psyches permitted, and since 12 boards was about half that, only 1 psyche permitted. Does this mean that in ACBL face-to-face tournaments, psyches are limited? And if not, I don't think they should be in a sanctioned online tournament (notifying TD fine, but limiting the number, I don't think so). Mind you, even if they are limited in face-to-face ACBL tournaments, I don't think they should be, but that's another topic. On a separate but related point, the ACBL tournaments haven't, for quite some time, generally had any "tournament rules" (i.e. when one clicks on "tournament rules" button, get a blank screen). Especially since some people tend to ignore/tune out chat once the tournament has started, rules such as limited psyches should either be in the tournament description, or in the tournament rules (especially since the tournament description says, "read tournament rules" :lol: ). By the way, I very rarely psych (though if I'm having a really bad day, my bids may arguably have little connection with reality... :lol: ).

I think that's part of the "default" rules that appear for all ACBL tournaments. Unless the policy has been changed, I asked one of the ACBL tournament directors, who agreed that for an individual so long as using something straightforward like sayc or 2/1 it didn't make much sense (i.e. not required). I've never had a problem with, in an ACBL individual, briefly discussing bidding with p at the start of each round. Of course, there will always be things arising you may have forgotten to discuss (Hmm, if not agreed on trump suit is it rkcb for last suit bid or normal blackwood? If opponents bid over 4NT blackwood, are we using DOPI, DIPO, or something else?). It's not really possible to discuss everything, and to me that's part of the fun of an individual; if you don't like it, play only in pairs... B) A CC even in an ACBL individual is sometimes useful, e.g. to prepare my own (straightforward) sayc CC, open it, and then each round say "I have an sayc cc open p, please let me know if you disagree with anything". Of course, if p's profile says 2/1 I'm willing to use that instead. The problem I have with some players' profiles is, they're so full of abbreviations for various conventions it takes longer to say what you're NOT willing to use from their profile than to simply agree on a basic approach. Again, I see pairs games as the time to have a fully fleshed-out system; in an individual, agree on basics and then take your chances... :)

The problem with the bid, in my view, is not so much that it's risky as that it shows distrust for your partner. Though I disagree with your initial pass, you're asking about your 5♣ bid... :blink: Now, if in a situation like an individual tournament where you have no idea what your partner's skills are or what your partner may do (I've had Stayman passed by p!), jumping to game (risking that p may have some help for you) is more understandable -- and in that situation, I would be more sympathetic to your jump to 5♣. But in a pairs game, you should trust your partner a bit. Depending on your p and what your bidding system is, you might double, or bid 4♣, or cuebid 3♥, or bid 3NT, or something else which is unusual enough your p will feel compelled to bid (and that bid may help you)Also, what if your p, having shown absolutely no points, and with you jumping to 5♣, decides to trust you have a reason to bid 5♣, and with 9 points, Qxx in ♣ and the A♠, raises you to 6♣ or cuebids 5♠ to show a stopper?

[excerpt only quoted] I'll use one of the examples you gave (I assume you meant 2♦ after 1NT, not 1♦ :blink: ) as being the easiest: Let's say bidding is 1NT - dbl - 2♦ - pass - 2♥ - all pass. One opponent who has to make opening lead asks what 2♦ bid means, answer, "no agreement". Asks, "does it show ♦?" Answer, "no agreement". Asks other p what 2♥ means, answer "no agreement". Asks again, "does it show ♥?" Answer, "no agreement". Sends private message to both opponents "please explain, was 2♦ bid and 2♥ bid artificial transfer or something else", answer "no agreement". "Please explain bids or I'll have to call director." Answer, "no agreement". Turns out the 2♦ bidder had 4 HCP but a 6-card ♥ suit (6-3-2-2 doubleton ♦), 1NT opener who rebid 2♥ had only a doubleton ♥. Now, how believable would a director find it that 2♦ and 2♥ weren't a transfer sequence? "No, really, there was no agreement, I just happened to bid 2♦ with a 6-card ♥ suit and only 2♦ and when p bid 2♥, I just happened to pass it despite having 6-card support; and because I didn't know, with a moral certainty, that p would treat 2♦ as a transfer, nor did I know, with a moral certainty, that 2♥ was a transfer response, I was under no obligation to explain, despite the fact that my passing 2♥ with a 6-card suit suggests I knew it was a transfer response...". Assume also that knowing what the bidding meant would affect opening lead, and that on the hand it actually makes a difference to the result (and that opening leader can't deduce, from his own hand, whether or not 2♦ and 2♥ were natural or artificial). That's very different from the situation in which one makes a bid which one genuinely _doesn't_ expect one's partner to understand (e.g. 1NT - pass - 6♣), presumably most partnerships the answer as to what 6♣ meant would be "no agreement".

[excerpt only quoted] I assume you were being humorously sarcastic (in which case you may ignore the rest of this message), but in case you weren't... :blink: "wk 4♦+ & 4+♥ or ♠" uses only 17 characters, including spaces, only 4 characters longer than what you wrote (fits in the alert window easily and can be typed quickly) and is FAR more understandable. Less time is wasted by opponents asking repeated questions which are necessary for them to understand what is meant. Also, just because you post a list of what you consider standard abbreviations to be, doesn't mean they're standard...if the BBO site has a list, or the WBF, or the like, that might be standard (even if most people don't know them ;) ).

An excerpt from the BBO tournament rules (i.e. that apply to all tournaments): "All tournament players should make a strong effort to properly alert and explain the bids that they make. We have people from all over the world playing on this site and language problems are inevitable. Keep in mind that what is 'standard' for you may not be 'standard' in other parts of the world. If you have any doubt as to whether or not you should alert a bid, you should alert it." Also, here's a link to a post by McBruce on these boards about the principle of coincidence: http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...=15entry21987 To the extent there is any conflict between the laws of bridge and the BBO rules, the BBO rules apply (just like if a particular tournament's rules states "no psyches" that is the rule no matter what the laws of bridge say). And of course, law 75.C as quoted previously, applies to real-life situations where one alerts the bid of one's partner, NOT in the self-alerting situation that applies in BBO.

[Excerpt only quoted] Do you really want a player who _wants_ to leave forced to stay? Is he or she, in that situation, going to bid or play well (or at all? Maybe will remain "silent" until booted). To paraphrase something I've heard, you can't legislate (or in this case program) politeness. Just set everyone who leaves without explanation as an "enemy" if you want (to warn you if they try to join on a future occasion). On the other hand, I've on rare occasion joined a table with rude players (or the type who don't answer any questions, "what system do you use" etc.). Under those circumstances, I don't particularly want to stay and I think that's understandable; I shouldn't need the host's permission (asking him or her to boot me, which might be refused!) to leave. As table host I've come within seconds of booting someone from the table for rudeness; their leaving obviated the need. If the table host is the rude (or totally silent, which is another form of rudeness) one, why shouldn't you be allowed to leave? I kind of agree with doofik about the 15-minute thing, if it was possible for the table host to receive the message suggested by badderzboy even within the 15 minutes, and choose to accept the player, that would be ideal. I have been in the situation where, with say 14 minutes left until a tournament, I invite a friend who's hosting an incomplete table, who accepts. Of course, I can't join that table, which remains incomplete, and people who join and are told it's only for 12 minutes leave again, etc. So no one ends up playing bridge until the tournament starts. Some people are _willing_ to play just a few hands before a tournament.

Calling the director was, at least by inference (and the subtopic), compared to vexatious litigation; it consumes time, energy, though (fortunately) doesn't cost money, and is stressful and annoying even if you win. I assume most people prefer to play bridge, rather than contest director rulings and argue points (actually, given some of the posts on this board, that may be an unwarranted assumption... :D ). If one sarcastic sentence (my examples were not intended to humour opponents, but as sarcasm, and/or arguably misleading but not actually lying, though that's a legalistic argument... :rolleyes: ) prevents a director call by pointing out to the opponents how idiotic their complaint is (without actually being "rude"), doesn't this benefit you? If (assuming you have the space) in your cc you have some brief mention of upgrading/downgrading (though I _AGREE_ there's no need for this with normal/rational people) and this allows you to tell opps "it's in my convention card", and this avoids a director call, doesn't this benefit you? Lastly, I think it's unfair to suggest that these opponents were Walruses; though Walter certainly didn't like/understand bidding which violated a point count, I don't recall reading any Menagerie stories in which a formal complaint was made for this reason... :D

Playing in an ACBL tournament, I considered my explanation of a bid (what would fit in the alert window) insufficient, so I sent a private message (using left/right arrow) to opponents (ONLY to the opponents, not to the "table") to explain it. Opponent complained "No table talk" and called the director! P of course, asked "what table talk?" and had no idea why director was called... ;)

[Excerpt only quoted] If p has to guess, that's one thing. But the way I see it, maybe a matter of semantics, either p is good enough that he/she KNOWS my bid was a splinter (no guessing required) or he/she doesn't know (might guess, but doesn't know). If p KNOWS my bid was a splinter (this is for purposes of this example, it could be some other artificial bid), then the fact that we didn't discuss, in advance, that we'd be using splinters doesn't mean that we don't have, _in effect_, an agreement to use them. If I'm partnered with, say, a "star" or someone who's given Vugraph commentary, I can be pretty sure they're going to know my bid is a splinter. Look at it another way. Let's say, as you state, there's no need to alert because the bid has no system meaning. It logically follows from your reasoning that, if opps ask me what my bid means, I answer "no agreement with p what bid means". If I say "no agreement with p what bid means", but I expect p to know it was a splinter, and p bids as if it were a splinter, and my hand is the perfect hand with which to use a splinter bid, and we get a great result, if the opponents complain is the tournament director likely to agree that I didn't have to explain what the bid meant? Will the director accept my explanation "Sure, I normally use splinters, and expected p to treat it as a splinter, but because I hadn't explicitly agreed in advance with my partner, who is a "star" and thus a genuine expert, to use splinters, I was under no obligation either to alert OR explain the bid to opponents"? ;)

No. This implies that it is OK to deviate from the posted card as long as you alert. Makes the convention card rather useless. If opponents are not damaged in any way, how is this a problem? Especially with BBO system, where p has no idea you alerted, no chance of giving p unauthorized information by alerting a bid as being contrary to cc. If the convention card doesn't accurately describe agreements, what good is it? The obsession on form over substance is astounding... The situation is one where, when the tournament starts, a default cc is opened (i.e. not one prepared by you and your p). So I was imagining, what if you look at it, it seems fine, your p likewise, but later on you make a bid and immediately (after making bid) realize your p will interpret it "correctly" in your system, but that it contradicts what the cc says. If you say nothing, unfair to opps, so shouldn't you alert the bid? Opps may or may not complain to director, but at least you've ensured that they're not _misled_ by the bid, which should make adjustment by the TD (if necessary) easier.

No. This implies that it is OK to deviate from the posted card as long as you alert. Makes the convention card rather useless. If opponents are not damaged in any way, how is this a problem? Especially with BBO system, where p has no idea you alerted, no chance of giving p unauthorized information by alerting a bid as being contrary to cc.

I agree, of course, you were right and your opponents were wrong. One suggestion, IF you're using a convention card, you might add a comment in one of the boxes that you will "adjust" point count, will upgrade/downgrade hand value, or something to that effect. Another suggestion, and not that I encourage deception or lying, but if the tournament doesn't prohibit psyches (which I disagree with, by the way, they're part of the game and shouldn't be prohibited), you could say "in our system my bid showed 12-14 points, I PSYCHED by opening 1NT with 15 points". Other responses, "Haven't you ever heard of someone MISCOUNTING the points in their hand?!" (doesn't actually claim you miscounted the points, but implies it... ;) ) or "Haven't you ever heard of someone MISCLICKING?!" (not as desirable, since some players are under the mistaken impression that you are obliged to tell them about misclicks, which you are not -- though if the tournament allows undos, you might want to :D ).

[Excerpt only quoted] Don't think I agree with this. Let's say p opens 1♠, I jump to 4♣ with good ♠ support and a void in ♣, intending it as a splinter (but not sure p will understand it). If my p "fields" the 4♣ bid (i.e. understands it shows ♠ support and shortness/control in ♣, and after some more control-showing bids we end up in 6♠ which makes) then he or she understood my artificial bid correctly, and I therefore should have alerted it. If my p _doesn't_ understand the 4♣ bid, then maybe it didn't need to be alerted. But while I may risk bids p might not understand, I _intend_ it to be understood, and since it might be, I think I need to alert it. ;) Of course, I probably needn't give extra info "p may not understand", but I'm trying to protect myself in case bidding takes a weird turn and opponents accuse me of misleading them about what bids meant... If I'm wrong, then at worst I've given opponents some extra information. Of course, they may not use that information...last time I alerted 4♣ as a splinter in a tournament, opening lead was still a ♣ -- opening leader's p wasnt' too happy, said something after hand like, "He told you he was void why you lead club!!!!!" :D

If I have signed up for a tournament (because of the software more than 15 minutes off) and then sit at a table in the main bridge club, I will say something like: "Hi all. I'm signed up for a tourney in about 20 minutes, so if I disappear suddenly you know why ;) ". I tell everyone first thing, and if the table host doesn't like it, he or she can simply remove me (or, more politely, ask me to leave...). I've never had _anyone_ object after I make this announcement, so assume most other players don't mind.