jonottawa

I agree with almost everything you just said. I don't know Rick Beye. I've seen him at tournaments but I don't think I've ever talked to him or had him at my table. I have nothing against him and didn't mean to imply otherwise. If he chooses not to clarify his comments, that's his decision. I totally agree that if you're going to respond to Mr. Lim's letter in the Bulletin that you have to be gentle with him. But when I read the letter and response I pictured dozens of people cutting out that letter and sticking it in their wallet and the next time they break tempo forever and pass and an opponent calls the director, they pull out the letter and say 'The CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR of the ACBL says that novices can take all day. I thought TRULY EXPERIENCED PLAYERS and VETERAN TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS understood that. Furthermore, please penalize my opponents for calling you as Mr. Beye suggests.' I think my earlier posts reflected that a more balanced response (or a clarification of the misleading response in this case) was all I was seeking.

That's not true. You can save all of the dwarves bar the first one. Furthermore, you could do so even if there were more colors. Keep thinking about it. As a start, imagine there were 3 dwarves. Could you save 2 for sure? No, you couldn't save 2 for sure. I'm the guy at the back of the line. Nobody can see my cap. So you definitely can't save me for sure. The guy in front of me has a black cap. If I don't tell him that he has a black cap you definitely can't save him for sure. So I say 'black'. I have a red cap and die. (Or if our code was to say the opposite of what he has on, I say 'red' and have a black cap and die.) He says 'black' and lives. Now the guy in front of him is on a pure guess and can't be saved for sure. I really hope I'm wrong here. I love being outsmarted (or outclevered, perhaps.) But assuming there's not some cheesy 'cheat' (like looking at your own cap or the executioner cutting off his own head if you say black or some such nonsense) then it can't be done.

Perhaps this is kfay's revenge for the F's puzzle. I agree with bid's analysis. I don't see how it's remotely conceivable to save more than 5 with certainty. You can either save yourself (which conveys no helpful information to your buddies) or you can tell the guy in front of you how to save himself (which means you have only a 50-50 shot of surviving yourself.) There's surely no way to guarantee that the front 9 dwarves all live. I'm 99.999% sure that either the problem was posed incorrectly or that there's some cheesy 'solution' that violates the parameters of the problem (since it's not explicitly stated that a dwarf can't take off his own cap and look at it.)

Why should you (in ACBL land) call the director when UI occurs (such as a BIT-pass in a competitive auction) and not later? 1. Because as mycroft rightly points out you ARE more likely (admittedly not guaranteed) to get agreement that there was a BIT. If you read the story I posted on my blog about a BIT-pass on BBO you'll see that in spite of a 2 minute tank and the comment 'thinking ...' that the other opponent (after balancing back in with zip and pip) tried to argue that there was no UI. That's not uncommon if you wait until 'later.' 2. Because you are giving fair warning to the opponents NOT to take advantage of the UI. That's the sportsmanlike thing to do, particularly against inexperienced players. Yes, if you wait until later you're guaranteed a 2-way shot if you didn't do anything egregious and can establish that a BIT occurred. No, that's not how I want to win. 3. Because some opponents won't be aware of their rights/obligations and this provides the director an opportunity to remind/teach them. I've argued that this is a very poor way to teach them, but how else will they learn if we don't teach them about ethics in classes and beginner games? By waiting until they do take advantage of UI (or maybe just appear to take advantage of UI) and then punishing them for unethical behavior? Yeah, great idea, that won't upset them at all. 4. Because the common ACBL interpretation of the Laws says that's what you're supposed to do. How you call the director is important. What you say to the director when he arrives is important. How you say what you say to the director is important. Doing what we can to get new players comfortable with director calls is important. Teaching new players a concept that's fundamental to the game is important. Unfortunately, Rick Beye conveyed a different message altogether.

To bid's point that only 3 people answered 'No! WTF was ...' I'd only concede that the poll answers/options were poorly worded. Everyone agrees that what Rick said was factually correct, so the only issues are: a) did he leave a false overall impression and b ) is it worth clarifying? I think anytime the chief tournament director leaves a false overall impression in the membership magazine that it's worth clarifying. Others seem to disagree.

Pard had one of these two hands: J / AQJT974 / A4 / Q83 4 / AQJT974 / AJ / Q83 (And yes, I know, you can cheat and go to myhands and find out which.) I'd be interested to know how you think the auction should proceed in either case.

You shouldn't. I had EXACTLY the same attitude the first time I ran into this exercise. :)

kfay, I think you'd better quit while you're ahead. There is a trick, but it has nothing to do with the wording of the question. Count the F's: FINISHEDFILESARETHERESULTOFYEARSOFSCIENTIFICSTUDYCOMBINEDWITHTHEEXPERIENCEOFYEARS... Do you still get 2 EDIT: OR EVEN 3?

The answer you're supposed to get is 3 (I think.) If you've done this sort of exercise before, though, you get a different answer ...

Well, thanks everyone for showing me that when someone is perceived to be bullied that good samaritans rush to their defense. That's the point I was making earlier. A pity you weren't around then ... For the europeans, you know better than to bring up the number of ACBL masterpoints you have. You know full well that's completely irrelevant. But whatever floats your boat. If you'll recall, mycroft said that he himself had very few masterpoints (monsterpoints). It has almost nothing to do with masterpoints. It has to do with bridge experience. It has to do with logical reasoning. It has to do with not being the first to start insulting people. This guy has very little experience (as evidenced by the article itself,) comes in here and starts name-calling, throwing around profanity, making nasty insinuations, distorting other people's arguments, and only gets worse when he's called on it. I'd appreciate it if we all took uday's advice and returned to the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss some other issue that has been raised here, please start a new thread. Thanks.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sakqt62hdkt7cakj2]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♥ - P - 1♠ - P 3♥-P - ?[/hv]

Speaking of busting out laughing ... PLEASE tell me that you're not this guy (with about 200 masterpoints.) Page 4 No wonder you have such a big chip on your shoulder. Next time, keep your mouth shut and your ears open and you might learn something from people with more smarts, more class, and vastly more bridge experience than you.

That's the intuitive solution. That's what makes it a good puzzle.

No, you took a reply to somebody other than you, about something other than what you posted, and not about you whatsoever, and, without actually reading the post, decided that it was somehow a personal insult to you. Brilliant. A break in tempo is not a rule infraction like going offsides. Whistling offsides every time it occurs is good, because it's an infraction. Calling the director every time there's a break in tempo (regardless of whether there is even any potential damage) is very harmful, disruptive to the game, and should get you banned from ACBL events. Doing so to beginners would make you an asshole. Claiming that the people who feel that the director should not be called for harmless BIT's are like referees allowing one side to break the rules is a rather dire insult. And finally, thinking that it's your job to "teach" beginners by calling the director on them unnecessarily is very wrong and extremely harmful. I don't know if you agree with the above paragraph or not, but I fail to see how it has anything whatsoever to do with you. When I wanted to discuss your post, I replied directly to you. Mycroft took the positions that I'm refuting in the above paragraph, you didn't. I was replying to him. Which is why I didn't discuss your specific example in it. But hey, if you want to take it personally, I guess I can't stop you. "And I am done. Have a nice day." I thought you were done ... Do you mean anything you say? Either you agree that your ad hominem attack against mycroft was rude, completely unprovoked, grammatically incorrect, and did nothing whatsoever to advance the discussion or you don't. I didn't consider it a personal insult against me at all. That's not the point. I voice my opinion when people are needlessly and unfairly attacked or bullied, whether it's the Venice Cup team, or people making suggestions how to improve BBO, or mycroft, or, God forbid, someday even you. For the umpteenth time ... the issue isn't about BIT alone and never was. It's about a BIT-pass in a competitive auction. Start your own thread if you want to discuss whether a director should be called every time there is any break in tempo. Nobody is arguing that. I hope you're not under the illusion that I take anything you have to say personally ...

I agree with all of this. That's why I said "he leads this guy to believe" ... "he reinforces the perception" and ..."he implies." I'm not claiming that Rick made any factual misstatements, only that by choosing to emphasize one set of facts over another set, he ended up leaving a very false impression overall. That's why I gave the option "yes, but he expressed himself poorly." That's probably how I'd vote if I voted in my own polls (I don't.) It's also why I asked for a clarification (and not a correction.)

That's just so funny, I'll let it stand by itself. Why do you post here? Honestly? All you do is declare something as apparently Stated by God, and then randomly insult people who deign to reply. Heck, you don't even bother to read what you're quoting. But since You have Ordained that this was a BIT situation (which it wasn't) and that it passed UI (which it didn't) why is there a point in arguing with you? God knows it would be beneath you to actually defend your position. And by the way, do tell me what in this: was rude or incoherent. You are easily the rudest poster here, and I don't just mean on this thread. And when your rudeness is met with rudeness, you are shocked! shocked! by the response. So, to sum it up quickly.... Specific Situation: Some bidding situations are more difficult than others. Beginners are likely to take longer with more difficult bidding situations that experts are, for obvious reasons. Therefore, on a difficult auction (such as one in which all four players are bidding), you should not assume a BIT simply because "years of experience" might tell you that other people would be able to bid faster there. You don't know how long these players would have taken to pass if they'd had a weak balanced hand. Nobody knows. That they might bid quickly on a more ordinary auction might make it a BIT, but it does not pass UI. General Situation: Calling the director on a BIT where you know that the director is going to rule no action was suggested simply creates a hostile environment. And I am done. Have a nice day. Sigh. I should know better than to wrestle with a ... Where to begin. First, you dredge up your initial post in this thread, which was neither rude, nor offensive, nor particularly incoherent. Not surprisingly, I didn't object to it. The conversation in this thread was spirited, but respectful, until someone said: "No, this is more like complaining to the referee 11 times in a game that the opponents socks are too low. ... I find it surprising that a TD wouldn't understand the difference between offsides and a BIT. Maybe it shouldn't. " Which is both extremely rude, and grammatically incorrect. In that same post, that person repeatedly misrepresented the other's arguments, betrayed a near-total ignorance of the issue, and implicitly referred to the other camp as 'assholes.' I rebuked said individual. He persisted. So I responded in kind (sans profanity.) Who was that guy, anyway?

Look, you put up a survey. The survey says that most people either disagree with you or don't care. So you got your answer. Whining about it isn't going to change it. Bullshit. The average call in a competitive auction is always going to be slower by a beginner than a call in a noncompetitive auction. In fact, for 90% of experts a the average call in a competitive auction is going to be slower than in a noncompetitive auction, if only to make sure that the opponent isn't just slow about getting an "alert" out. And you're the first and only person to whine about it. Have you ever considered that there might be a reason for that? Like...maybe it isn't a strawman? This person sat down at a table, made an opening bid, and took X seconds for his next call in competition. It doesn't matter whether X is 2 seconds or 15. How could the opponents possibly know whether the player in question always takes that long? If I bid quickly when only one side is bidding (after the first round of the auction), and if I always take 6-8 seconds to bid in competition, is that a BIT? I suppose. What UI am I passing? That it's a competitive auction? This was the player in question's second call in the auction, and the first call in competition. So the opponent called the director for what? In case sometime in the future the opponent might pass at a different tempo in competition? Do you have any evidence that this person took any more or less time than they usually do to pass in a competitive auction? No. Did their opponents? No. Did they call the director anyways? Yes. Why? I'm guessing it's probably for the same reason that you feel the need to quote an entire page of somebody else's work to add a "Me too!" underneath it. Trying to conceal your ignorance behind rudeness, incoherence and distorting other people's arguments isn't working out, JT. You disagree that a BIT followed by pass in a competitive auction virtually always transmits UI. You're just flat wrong. If I thought you had an open mind, I'd try to educate you on that point, but it's clear that you don't. You change your argument from 'don't call when there's a BIT-pass' to 'how do they know what normal tempo for this person is?' Make up your mind. They know what 'normal tempo' is from years of playing the game and by observing how long that opponent takes with all his other calls that round. Mr. Lim even said that he had extras and took some time to think about the hand. The opponents picked up on that correctly. I call you for making a straw man argument and you reveal your complete ignorance of the concept. You think that because 4 people made the same straw man argument that you did that makes you right. Stick to the issue that was raised. If I argue that 2+2=4 and you say no, 2+2 doesn't equal 5, you're wasting everyone's time. The poll results reveal that 75% of the people don't wholeheartedly agree with Rick Beye. That in itself should be enough to get him to clarify his position.

This whole 'coddling beginners' philosophy seems to be a recurring theme. It doesn't do them any favors. For a long time we were teaching beginners 16-18 NTs and requiring 13 HCP to open (the Club series.) Dumb idea. Didn't help them at all. They should have been learning normal (most 12 counts) openers, 15-17 NTs, transfers, the LAW and udca from the beginning. Instead, they had to unlearn everything they'd learned, which is way harder than learning it right the first time. We generally don't teach them a thing about ethics. Dumb idea. On Sunday I played in a club game. There was supposed to be a mentor-mentee game on the side but only 1.5 tables showed up for that game so we all played together. One mentee had a bad habit of reaching into the bidding box, clamping down on a bid, and then studying her hand a while longer. Normally I'd have said something, if it was a pair of novices, for instance, but isn't that what a mentor is for? The mentor didn't say a word. Neither did I. Against the same pair, they had the uncontested auction 1D - 1S - 1N - 2H - 2S - 4S (the mentor opened 1D.) The mentee turned up with a 17 count. On the very next hand, again the mentor opened 1D and the auction proceeded: 1D - 1S - 1N - 2H. This time, the mentor had a 2-4-4-3 13 count. She bid 4 Hearts. I thought the mentor was supposed to teach the mentee how to play, not the other way around. Of course, the mentee had smiled and said 'deja vu' before quickly bidding 2H this time. I wonder if the mentor would have found the same call over an agonizingly slow 2H. Against another pair, a LOL followed suit in trumps and with it came the Ace of Spades. I was dummy. My pard let her pick it up. I probably wouldn't have, but I'm not going to overrule my pard the declarer and call the director as dummy (used to be I wouldn't have had the option, but I believe any player (including dummy) can call the director in case of an irregularity these days.) Against 2 other pairs, the recurring issue of 'do you let someone see a trick again once all 4 players have turned it face down?' came up. Both times I waited to see what partner wanted to do. Both times he turned it up and so I followed suit. Many times as a novice (and still once in a blue moon these days) I kicked myself for turning a trick over too quickly. Not once have I ever asked to revisit a trick that's face down. In short, I'm willing to cut novices LOTS of slack, especially at club games. But I'm not sure I'm doing them any favors by doing so and when they start DEMANDING that I do so, my inclination to comply quickly dissipates.

And your conclusion is therefore if we punish them enough, they'll learn what the rules actually say? Come on. Actually, you can call when UI is used or potentially used, as well as when it occurs. Law 73D. It's not actually required. I'd love it if Directors would penalize people who called the director on a hesitation when said hesitation clearly passed no useful UI. Calling the director to "educate" your opponents is against the rules, and as a director, I can tell you that few things upset the opponents more than an educational "call". Which is fine if there's an irregularity. But a break in tempo is not an irregularity- only passing UI is. When you call about a hesitation which does not pass UI, it is: 1. Pointless. There is no equity to restore when a BIT when no action "...could demonstrably have been suggested over another..." (73F1). 2. Upsets beginning players. Heck, upsets most players. 3. Doesn't "protect" anything. If you can read anything into a BILie taking 10 seconds to figure out what's going on in an auction where all four players bid, good for you. But I can assure you that they'd likely take that extra time regardless, especially if the prior bids were quick. Heck, I wait an extra 2-3 seconds any time my RHO bids in case they're being slow to make an alert (which is common). In fact, when I play face to face, after my first bid I put my cards on the table. After the RHO bids, I wait a few seconds for an alert, pick up my cards, fan them, take 2-3 seconds, and then make a call. This is for any hand, any strength. Why? Because some assholes feel the need to "protect" themselves if I spend the entire 6-7 second procedure looking at my hand. Never mind that the extra time is thinking about what THEIR bids meant, if I need to ask, if there is perhaps a missed alert, and what my partner's call meant in context, none of which has anything to do with what my hand looks like or whether I have anything to think about irt my next call. I could, of course, simply ask about my opponent's bids on the first round of the auction every single time, and I do know people who do that (and there was recently a thread about one of those that went to the AC). If a break in tempo obviously and demonstrably suggests one action over another, by all means call the director, regardless of what level your opponent is. If it did not, leave it alone. If later, they take an unusual action that you think may have been influenced by the earlier UI, call the director then. But people who call the directors on beginners because they took a couple of extra seconds during a competitive auction when no UI was passed should be punished for it. No, this is more like complaining to the referee 11 times in a game that the opponents socks are too low. You know that there's been no damage. You know the referee isn't going to rule in your favor, and you know that the referee shouldn't rule in your favor. You're either hoping that the ref screws up and gives you a bonus, or that you'll manage to rattle the opponents. Either way, YOU should be penalized for it. I find it surprising that a TD wouldn't understand the difference between offsides and a BIT. Maybe it shouldn't. You have the right to be wrong. Must you be wrong so loudly? A slow pass (or slow double) transmits UI 95%+ of the time. You're about the 4th person who's tried to tear down a straw man by saying that it's silly to call the director for a break in tempo alone. We're talking about a break in tempo followed by a pass and have been from the beginning. That virtually always transmits UI. If you think it's right to call the director when UI is transmitted, but wrong to call the director when an opponent breaks tempo and then passes in a competitive auction, explain yourself.

Where's the option: Grand Slam force except with Phil in which case I'd bid 6 of my best minor and then correct 6 Hearts to 7 if I had 2. B)

Though technically, if the play never got near you it's probably not going to get an offside call in football (soccer.) "A player in an offside position is only committing an offside offence if, "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team", in the opinion of the referee, he is involved in active play."

Crap. I hate it when other people make my point for me better than I was able to. :rolleyes: I hope you drop a line to editor@acbl.org

I vote for distributional with Clubs and Hearts. Whatever it is, I bid 3♣. Pard had other, less confusing, ways to show a good hand (Dbl), a limit raise (2♦) and a mixed raise (3♦.) He had no other way to show a really distributional hand with the round suits. I try to make my partner's life as easy as possible and I tend to play with people who feel the same way.

Completely disagree. Yes, fear-mongering in the MSM is a problem. But instability in Pakistan, the only muslim nation with nuclear weapons, is not something that should be taken lightly. Your 2nd example (that you edited-in after your original post) is better, but don't conflate the 2 issues.

Thx for the feedback. I was West. Away from the table after the round pard said he thought I had a 2NT bid over 2♦. I was pretty sure that, while it's close for sure, I had made the consensus call at this form of scoring. So I told him I'd post it here. He made 2 Hearts on the nose. I wasn't really paying attention (I seldom do when I'm dummy) so I'm not sure what the whole layout was. The matchpoints seem to indicate that game was touch and go, as expected. 430 7 400 5- 400 5- 110 3- 110 3- -50 1- -50 1- -100 0 Since both players were uber-max for their bidding and game looks okay but not great, I really don't mind missing game here (if either player invites, his pard will accept even with a little bit less than what he held and then you'll be in a crappy game.) Usually the guy with 16 makes the move here, I think, but with stiff K (and godawful spots,) taking the low road seems eminently reasonable at matchpoints.