jonottawa

[hv=d=n&v=n&w=sj53h72dk982caqt5&e=sk642haq643da73ck]266|100|Scoring: MP P - 1♥ - P - 1N (forcing) P - 2♦ P - 2♥ P - P - P[/hv] Not the most interesting hand this time. I told my pard in today's club game I'd post this here. As far as agreements ... 2/1, 'normal' openers (not insanely aggressive or conservative.)

What's silly is not teaching beginners anything about ethics ... or claiming that duplicate bridge is completely a social endeavor for almost everybody. I've yet to meet a player who gets no added enjoyment out of winning. "Let's wait til they cheat" and then take our 2-way shot. Uh, no. Let's not. Let's get an agreement when UI occurs like we're supposed to (at least, in ACBL, as clearly indicated by blackshoe's references) so that everyone's rights are protected. Let's teach beginners the rules. Let's be as friendly and polite about it as we can. Then let's follow the rules. Let's teach them that there's nothing scary about a director call. Maybe they'll call the director more often when someone is bullying them instead of just quitting. Besides, the guy who wrote the letter was taking himself all seriously. He's gonna be a life master someday. The rank is meaningless enough without diminishing it even more by not requiring those who aspire to it to be subject to the same rules/procedures as everybody else.

Usually, in my experience, the novice is the one that is a stranger to the club, and the experienced player is the one the director knows (at least here in LA). And I HAVE seen this used as a bullying tactic. There are several pairs that call after a three second hesitation by opponent, thereby rattling the opponent and causing them to misbid/misplay. From my first duplicate, I never felt bullied if someone called the director. The solution might be to have a monthly 'call the director' novice game where every round (at the end of a hand) someone at the table has to call the director and then pay one of his opponents a compliment when the director arrives. Everyone would be required to call the director at least once. That would get novices used to director calls. I hate pigs, committees, corrupt politicians, authority figures in general... (I have strong libertarian tendencies) but it would never occur to me to feel bullied by someone asking the referee to do his job.

I actually expected to receive most of the blame in the voting (for the reason Josh stated.) What I didn't expect was that well over half the folks (at least in the early voting) would give me 90-100% of the blame. That's just patently absurd when 7 is cold in 3 strains on this auction with that moose when partner had other options strongly suggested by the auction. I don't have strong feelings about the 5♠ vs 5NT question. 5♠ is lower. 5♠ will NEVER get passed. 5♠ arguably suggests a ♠ void. 5♠ arguably suggests interest in a grand. 5♠ arguably gives you a chance to diagnose the big-time ♠ wastage that keeps you out of a bad grand. On the downside, pard might have taken 5♠ as exclusion. I love 6♠ because in 2 bids I've managed to paint a clear picture of my exact hand. Pard knows with a fairly high degree of confidence that I have: - / Axxxx / K?? / AK?xx I don't think 7♣ paints nearly so clear a picture.

My view is that whenever someone creates UI (a break in tempo is not sufficient, but a break in tempo and pass when their partner still has a call is usually sufficient) that it is prudent to notify the director, or at least get an acknowledgement that a BIT occurred if that's the cause of the UI. Of course it's ok to call the director when there's been a break in tempo AND the player passed AND the partner bid something. But then I would ususally just establish an agreement that there had been a BIT (only calling the police if we're not in agreement) and 'check-the-evidence' to decide if an infraction did occur or not. Last time I called the director on a BIT-auction was 15 months ago and it was after dummy hit (declarer broke tempo in the auction). My point was that your letter should at least have clarified that you meant pass and bid auctions. I think the wording was unfortunate and that we still differ on our view of the matter. Your point seems to keep changing. I think my letter's pretty clear: "it's standard practice to get agreement (often with the aid of a director) that there was a break in tempo in a competitive auction when somebody breaks tempo and passes." You disagree with this and think it's appropriate to wait and see. I think it protects both partnerships to establish that there was a break in tempo IMMEDIATELY. You don't have 'faulty memories' cropping up and if a player was tempted to take an inappropriate view, he would certainly now think twice. If you say 'Just say to your novice opponent 'Do you acknowledge that there was a break in tempo?'' you're arguably going to rattle a novice worse than if you had called the director. Presumably you're a stranger and your behavior could be interpreted as bullying. The novice might think that the break in tempo itself was an infraction and get emotional. Presumably the novice knows the director and the director will gently explain the situation to the novice.

Here's an example of opps taking advantage of UI from a BIT during an ACBL tournament on BBO that I objected to: http://jonathanferguson.com/2007/09/16/director.aspx

My view is that whenever someone creates UI (a break in tempo is not sufficient, but a break in tempo and pass when their partner still has a call is usually sufficient) that it is prudent to notify the director, or at least get an acknowledgement that a BIT occurred if that's the cause of the UI. I might call the director in such an instance once every 10 sessions or so. The director comes, gets the opps to acknowledge the BIT, tells the partner of the tempo-breaker not to take any inference, and says 'call me back if there's a problem.' If you think it's a good idea to let people draw inferences from breaks in tempo or to wait until after the damage is done to try to get the opponents to acknowledge there was a break in tempo, then yes, your view is substantially different from mine. If you think a director call per table every 10 sessions is too onerous a burden to suffer in order to make sure the game is fair, then yes, we differ on what constitutes "fun and fair for everyone" as well.

I don't agree that with the example hand I gave you wouldn't want to bid 4N natural at these colors if that bid were available. The threat of a Spade ruff is too high. That's a very specific hand, though. I do agree that in general, you'll get more use/frequency out of using 4N as 2 suits and would have assumed that treatment at any other colors. I think 5♠ is still the right bid on the actual hand, though.

I think a lot of the comments are way off the mark. "I think 5♠ was a great bid." I think 6♠ was a great bid. "I don't like 6♦ much." I like 6♦ just fine. "N was horrible, imho." Nobody was horrible, imho. But 7 Diamonds was the worst bid of the auction. "Maybe 6 Heart instead of 6 Spade had been a better way to the right slam, but I don´t know if this should show a very strong Heart one suiter, a cuebid confirming diamonds or this hand." Maybe if you don't know what 6 Hearts means then partner won't either. Maybe that makes 6 Hearts a bad bid. "If Cs don't break 5-0 you have 13 top tricks in NT, C or H. (The latter 2 if there is no ruff on the opening lead)." And if ♣ do break 5-0 you have 13 top tricks in NT, C or H. (The latter 2 if there is no ruff on the opening lead.) "4 NT as two places to play is nice and I agree that this had solved the problem." I'm not sure it solves the problem. Besides, Red vs White could you not want to play in 4NT rather than whip 4 Spades with something like Kx xx AKxxxxx xx? (Fearing a Spade ruff against 5m.) "I voted South but I meant North of course." Of course ... NOT! "After 6D North need to pass IMHO. After the 6S i would be annoyed and probably bid 7 D too." In my experience, being annoyed isn't conducive to good decision-making. "7♦ lacks imagination, partner wants to play 6NT ot higher, he could had bid 7♦by himself" Finally we're on to something ... South knows that North is void in Spades and isn't thrilled with the idea of playing in Diamonds. "It seems that everyone made reasonable decisions on this auction. Only the result was silly. That happens sometimes." I think South had a tough decision over 6 Spades. But in theory he should get it right (any bid but 7 Diamonds and we'll end up in a good spot.) What Diamond holding did he think North had when North didn't bid 7 Diamonds himself? "However, all of this seems like resulting, and as N I think the push to a grand is too much." Saying the push to the grand is too much seems like resulting. 13 cold tricks in 3 strains. I agree with pretty much everything that Josh says. Could the folks who STILL think that I deserve all the blame please tell me what hand partner was playing me for when he bid 7 Diamonds (no KQxx of Diamonds, please, I'm not a sadist.) Pard knows I'm void in ♠ and he knows I have misgivings about ♦ even though I know that that's his best suit. Am I not a heavy favorite to be 0-5-3-5? If not, why not? http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1193934498

I fired this off just now: To the Editor: I think Rick Beye's response to B.D. Lim's letter in the November Bulletin was way off the mark. Mr. Beye should have conveyed to Mr. Lim that a) it's important to bid in tempo in competitive auctions, often by planning ahead (why was Mr. Lim's 4-3-3-3 hand a problem?) b ) directors are there to make sure that the game is fun and fair for everyone and c) it's standard practice to get agreement (often with the aid of a director) that there was a break in tempo in a competitive auction when somebody breaks tempo and passes. Instead Mr. Beye chose to convey to Mr. Lim that a) inexperienced players should be allowed to break tempo with impunity b ) maintaining steady tempo is desirable, though not always required and c) directors should assign procedural penalties to players who call them to establish that a BIT resulting in UI has occurred. I hope Mr. Beye clarifies his comments in the December Bulletin. Otherwise, people will be left with the impression that the laws only apply to experienced players and that experienced players can expect to receive procedural penalties if they try to protect everyone at the table by calling the director when a BIT-pass occurs in a competitive auction. Sincerely, Jonathan Ferguson

Very clever. Solved.

I put it here because I thought more controversial topics (like the Venice cup threads) went here because the 'rules' are slightly more relaxed. I have no problem if somebody wants to move it.

I'll start by saying that I've been an ACBL member for almost 20 years (over half my life) and on the whole I'm quite happy with the organization. I've had to call on the highest levels of the organization a couple of times and they've always come through. But this letter to the editor and response REALLY ticked me off. "To the Editor: I am an intermediate player working to become a Life Master. To get my gold and silver points, I have to play in tournaments and sometimes against top-flight players. Some of these "A" players bid and play at a pace much faster than I am used to. On one occasion, I opened 1♣, my left-hand opponent overcalled 1♦, my partner bid 2♣ and RHO bid 2♦. I had a good hand, but with only three clubs, so I re-evaluated my hand for about six to eight seconds and decided to pass. Immediately my LHO called the director for "protection" because there was a break in tempo. I was taught to re-evaluate my hand after every bid, and I thought I was playing at normal speed. How long is a player allowed to think before making a move, whether to bid or to pass? If the opponents are bidding and playing too fast, do I have to rush and follow their tempo (which often ends up in a disaster for me) or should they slow down a bit in order to maintain an even tempo? It is not very pleasant when your opponents call the director on you. It just takes the joy out of playing bridge!" "Chief Tournament Director Rick Beye comments: "As you point out, less-experienced players often require more time to digest information, especially in competitive situations. Truly experienced players understand this, as do veteran tournament directors. "Law 73D points out that it is 'desirable, though not always required' for players to maintain steady tempo. A variation in and of itself is not an infraction. The exact time frame for a steady tempo is not defined by Law or regulation. "As an aside, Law 90A empowers the director to penalize players who unduly delay or obstruct the game -- as through needless director calls. I would hope that your club director takes the time to slow down your high-speed opponent." Now, of course, what Rick should have told this guy is that no, you don't have to bid and play lightning fast just because your opponents do. As long as you maintain YOUR tempo (taking 6-8 seconds at EVERY call, for instance,) you're just fine. Then he should have said something about directors being there to make the game more enjoyable and fair for everyone, not to act as the 'police', so one shouldn't harbor any negative feelings whatsoever about a director call. He might have added that it's often a good idea to plan your follow up bids early in the auction so that you're able to bid in tempo later. Especially when you have a straightforward 4-3-3-3 hand like this guy apparently had, what's the problem? But what DID Rick tell this aspiring life master-to-be? In his first paragraph he leads this guy to believe that less-experienced players can take as long as they want to digest information and that 'truly experienced' (as opposed to what, people who've played for 20 years but aren't as 'truly experienced' as Rick?) players should ignore breaks in tempo by less-experienced players. Apparently 'veteran tournament directors' should as well. In his second paragraph, he reinforces the perception of 'anything goes' by giving the impression that 'Yeah, yeah, it's desirable, but not required' to bid in tempo. The real reason it's 'not always required' is that, for instance, in an auction like 1N P 3N, the opening bidder can pass as fast as he wants because the partnership has arrived and there isn't a hand that the 1N bidder could have anything more to think about. Not in a competitive auction, though, and not because one of the players is more or less experienced. If someone breaks tempo edit: and passes in a competitive auction, the existence of a break-in-tempo should be immediately agreed to, usually by way of a director call. That protects the rights of BOTH partnerships. Rick should know that. The third paragraph was the last straw for me. Rick implies that if I call the director (as I damn well should) if a less-experienced (or more experienced, or equally experienced) player breaks tempo edit: and passes in a competitive auction, the director should give me a procedural penalty! The guy who called the director did exactly the right thing. Yes, from time to time, most players at a club game are going to cut beginners a little slack. But it's not up to the director to do so. He's got to enforce the rules fairly and objectively. It seems to me that the ACBL has a choice: Educate new players about their ethical obligations in a serious way or tell them that the rules don't apply to them because they're less experienced. If Rick Beye's response is any indication, they've chosen unwisely.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=shat743dkj8cakj83&s=sa9hkqjda6542cq92]133|200|Scoring: IMP P - 1NT - 4♠ - 5♠ P - 6♦ - P - 6♠ P - 7♦ - P - P - P[/hv]

Obviously the line in both contracts will be the same, since it's matchpoints. Nobody would ever play to make 6 here. Looks normal to play a ♠ up, ruff a ♣ low (hoping to pick up something from RHO if he's not an expert) and ♠ up.

If the body of the forwarded email was: "F*** You, Idiot." then FYI might have negative connotations. Other than that, of course FYI is neutral. The relevant question is whether the forwarded email would be of sufficient interest to the 2nd party to warrant forwarding it. Forwarding stupid emails is generally in poor taste, akin to spam. If person B objected, surely it was to that, and not to the three letters.

When did the WSJ turn into a gossip column? Their editorial page has been dominated by wingnuts and wingnuttery for years, but used to be that their articles were worth reading. I can't believe they'd print that allegation about smoking weed. Who cares? (except maybe the USBF BoD)

Y'all have convinced me. I thought it would be a much closer vote. At the time I thought it was borderline 'automatic' to pull here, but as others have said, if you trust partner, you sit. Period. (And if you don't trust partner, find another one.) Luckily I got what I deserved. We'd have beaten 4 Diamonds a trick, maybe 2 if he tried to make it. 4 Spades was down 2. The whole story is on my blog. If you want to look at the hand it's here: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...rname=jonottawa Pard held: ♠962 ♥A76 ♦AJT6 ♣K73

:huh: Phil, take your own advice.

The break in tempo/tank was about 12 seconds. I had very little confidence in partner. "Pard already passed 2 ♠ didn't he?" I'm not considering pulling this to make. I'm considering pulling this because I have purity, a 9+ card fit, and less than half a trick on defense opposite a passed hand when the opps are known to have at least 23 high and a 2 suit fit. "Why'd you bid 2 ♠ and not 3 ♠?" I have an affinity for plus scores. How often does the 2 ♥ bidder reopen? With the boss suit, going slow usually works. A direct 3 ♠ would have saved me an IMP, though, it's true. "I bet you get doubled." I bet I didn't.

You pick up in 3rd seat. [hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqjt53h932d7ct54]133|100|Scoring: IMP P - 2♥ - P - P X - P - 2 ♠ - P P - 3 ♦ - 3 ♠ - 4 ♦ X - P - ?[/hv] Pard broke tempo before he doubled 4 Diamonds. Edit: reformatted auction

Josh, I'm going to have to pass on moving into that underground bunker in South Dakota with you. The good news is that Michael sounds keen to move into a nice beachhouse with you. Great property. Right on the ocean. Of course, when the tide moves in it's IN the ocean, but that's what the government is for, right? To protect its citizens against freakish events like the moon's gravitation and whatnot. Just rebuild at low tide on Uncle Sam's dime. If you CAN'T GET 'tide insurance' or 'flood insurance' because it would be prohibitively expensive, that's a huge red flag that the behavior you're pursuing is irrational, Michael. Then he goes on this '50 million people would die' rant. Get a grip. When I lived in Ottawa, I didn't walk down to the end of the street and knock on Trudeau/Mulroney/Chretien's door and ask him to shovel my walk for me. I didn't ask him to pay for my storm windows or to help defray the cost of switching them in and out every spring and fall. Choose to live where you want. Take responsibility for the well-known, recurring hazards that that area is exposed to. Accept the consequences if you don't.

You said "next time buy insurance" which sure sounds like "Their faults since they were cheap idiots for not having bought insurance." That is a totally ridiculous thing to say when their insurance companies told them they don't need that type of insurance, not to mention how many of these people couldn't afford it. Saying something is inevitable is sure brilliant after it happens. If nothing that big had happened there before then what makes it inevitable? Now we can't move anywhere where there is a chance anything could happen? Sounds good, I'll split an underground bunker in South Dakota with you. What's "totally ridiculous" is choosing to live below sea level in a region that is susceptible to hurricanes without having a system of levees in place, financed by the people who choose to live there and capable of withstanding a "somewhat stronger than average" storm. What's "totally ridiculous" is making decisions based on what your insurance company tells you or arguing that people who make such decisions aren't responsible when those decisions work out badly. What's "totally ridiculous" is believing that insurance companies are going to charge prohibitively high premiums for events that are so unlikely that you think someone shouldn't even bother to insure against them at all. What's "totally ridiculous" is believing that not being able to afford insurance makes you blameless for not having insurance. What's "totally ridiculous" is portraying what I've argued above and in previous posts as implying that we all ought to move to underground bunkers in South Dakota.

I'm referring to hurricanes in the southeast. Katrina was only a category 3 hurricane. It was inevitable that a storm of that magnitude hit New Orleans eventually and somewhat surprising that it didn't happen sooner. It was equally inevitable that when a category 4 storm hit New Orleans that the levees would be breached. How you can assign any relevance to what people were told by their insurance companies, or car salesmen, or ministers, or magic 8-balls, is beyond me.

Here's what I'm hearing you say: "I'm all for requiring others to take personal responsibility for their decisions. I just don't think I should have to." (In other words, the "point" at which you stop being "all for it" is the point at which it's expected of you.) "Explain to me how I'm supposed to prepare for a natural disaster that's inevitable and long overdue when I can just continue to enjoy the benefits of living here and then run crying to the federal government for a big handout when that inevitable, long-overdue disaster strikes."