david_c

I'm not convinced this is workable. Some possible problems: - The explanations you give at the table might not be suitable for an FD file. You might want to give more detail in your FD file than you can fit into an alert at the table. - It might be difficult to review your input later. In particular, your partner might want to know what you've typed. That can't happen at the table because it would conflict with self-alerting. - FD has the ability to store different meanings for sequences depending on position and vulnerability. So either you have to give the same explanation again when the same bid comes up at a different posistion/vulnerability, or you have to have some way of telling FD when your explanation applies (which is time-consuming and interferes with trying to play the hand). - Even if FD can record your explanations, it doesn't get information about the disposition, min/max length etc. (Note: I don't care for this information actually and would prefer FD files to contain just the "description", but while it's here we might as well be consistent about using it.)

Fine, but evidently this TD doesn't agree, and it's their tournament so they get to make the rules. Having said that, I'm amazed that a TD would remove a player for chatting without giving a warning first.

Pass from me. If partner had actually opened a weak 1NT there would be no way I'd be competing above 3♥ on this hand. We're in a slightly different situation here, but we still have to assume he has a weak NT hand. Certainly, we can deduce that partner has at least four clubs, probably five, so it may be right to try for 4♣, but game seems highly unlikely and this is not the right vulnerability for competing for a part-score.

Even though I didn't take part, I've really enjoyed reading all the auctions and comments. Thanks Matt and everyone.

From looking at convention cards on BBO, it seems that most Italians play that 1♣ can be a doubleton. So if you're playing in a BBOItalia tournament you should probably be expecting this, whether it's alerted or not. In this sense the TD is correct. Elsewhere on BBO it probably ought to be alerted, but not everyone will do this so you shouldn't rely on it.

First of all, if you mean "it's normal for him to think for a few seconds" then I would agree. However, that then is not a break in tempo, by definition. On the other hand, if partner really did take an exceptional amount of time to double, then it doesn't matter how difficult his problem is, it's still a break in tempo and you have UI. Secondly, there may be cases where a hesitation doesn't suggest anything in particular, but this ain't one of them. Partner's hesitation means that he was considering not doubling. That makes it more likely that pulling the double is right. We don't need to know exactly what partner was considering in order to work this out. In fact it's irrelevant what partner was thinking about - he might be thinking about something completely unrelated to bridge for all we know, but it doesn't make any difference. All that matters is what the hesitation suggests. Here it clearly suggests that pulling is more likely to be right than if there was no hesitation, so you're not allowed to pull if pass is a logical alternative.

No that's not right. The hesitation suggests pulling over passing - if partner was unsure whether double was right, then that makes passing the double less attractive. So, unless pass is not a logical alternative, you are obliged to pass. But the opposite situation can't happen: if you had chosen to pass, then there's no way that the TD will rule against you, because passing is not the action suggested by the hesitation. Now, Luis suggests that partner may have hesitated deliberately to make sure that you pass. Even if you think this might have happened, it is STILL your responsibility to pass here. The point is, if partner did hesitate deliberately, then that is the infraction, not your fielding it. From your point of view, you have to assume that partner's hesitation is genuine, and in that case it clearly suggests pulling the double, so you must not do that unless you think pass is illogical. Sorry, but that's not right either. If someone is deliberately trying to influence their partner, then that is cheating. Certainly, that should be dealt with very severely. But normal UI cases are not about cheating. Most hesitations are not deliberate attempts to influence partner, but they're still hesitations, and if partner was allowed to take advantage of them then that would be totally unfair on the opponents. By all means, go ahead and make the bid that you would have done without the hesitation, but if that bid happens to be suggested by the hesitation then you must expect the TD to rule against you.

All these abbreviations worry me a little. They're great for people who are already familar with the WBF abbreviations, but most BBO users aren't - wouldn't they have problems understanding what "F1" meant? But it might still be sensible to make the "official" BBO FD files conform to some standard, while allowing more flexibility for files created by the users.

It's from the "awkward rebid" thread, innit?

nonsense deleted

No. It's against the rules.

1. Maybe it's different when you play Raptor, but I'd say there are plenty of hands which are clear 1♠ bids with only four spades, like Kxxx xx xxx xxxx. 2. Yes, partner should probably pass and you start running. A 2♣ contract should also be in the picture here, and there's a decent chance that you might find it - or you might still end up in 1NTx. (I don't like partner's 1♠ bid. If you're not going to pass, 1♦ seems better.)

Precisely - that's the problem. If responder was allowed to pass with a yarborough, you wouldn't need these safety mechanisms. You could then spend your time (and bidding space) worrying about something more important.

Here's my take on this: The reason we want to pass with very weak hands is so that when we do find a bid, opener can rely on a little bit of strength opposite. If you're not allowed to pass when you have complete rubbish, then you will have to sort out the varying degrees of rubbish later on. That consumes a lot of bidding space (or else requires a lot of guesswork), which would be better spent on more commonly-occuring hand types - note that hands which are too weak to respond to a non-forcing 1-bid don't come up very often. I like to think of it in terms of the total bidding space in the system. If you don't allow sequences like 1♥:pass, then you have less space available overall. No matter how you arrange your opening bids (you can play transfers, or whatever), you can never get this space back.

I've always thought that opening leads are very hard. I think intermediates would appreciate some general advice here. Books seem to be good at explaining that KQJTx is a good suit to lead, but you rarely see any good advice about how to decide what suit to lead when the choice is between, say, Kxxx and xxx. Or, what sort of auctions suggest that a trump lead might be right? And things like that.

I agree too. Well said.

Ben,

2♥ for me. I choose to lie by underbidding; 2♥ is the most encouraging underbid that I can find.

Well, it doesn't show clubs, does it? :rolleyes: Seriously, it wouldn't be too surprising if it was alertable. Similarly, if there are people in England who play Stayman the French way, that will be alertable here even after the new regulations come in.

I wonder whether part of the reason 10-13 and 11-14 seem OK is that there aren't too many unfavourable comparisons with the field. Whereas if you play 15-18, say, it's all too obvious when you lose out to the 15-17 pairs. Personally my instinct is that a three-point range is slightly too narrow, but a four-point range is too wide. There seemed to be quite a few pairs at the BB with convention cards marked as "(14)15-17" - I like the look of that, though I haven't played it myself (at least, not with my partner knowing about it). It does depend on the system though. In a "Standard" system I'd want my range for 1NT to be wider than the 1NT rebid, because 1m doesn't deal with weak balanced hands particularly well. Whereas in Swedish Club (to take an extreme example), the 1♣ opening describes weak balanced hands very nicely so there is less reason to upgrade them.

No. If the difference is significant enough that you can notice it at the table, then there's no way a player can keep it up for a lifetime. There must be something else going on - "you make your own luck at this game". (Note - the number of genuinely "lucky" players over a set of n boards can be estimated using the central limit theorem.)

I would take issue with the word "blatantly". Paradox responses lose in a number of situations, perhaps most importantly because responder can't show a major at the two-level.

I've experimented with bidding 2♣ on this sort of hand, and it has always worked out very poorly. So pass. [Aside: Playing Keri you can take out into 2♦ on this hand. I've heard some people complain that not being able to use "garbage Stayman" is a problem with Keri, but in my experience the ability to take out into diamonds on hands like this is much more useful.]

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that Law 40 refers mostly to "understandings" rather than "agreements". (Or perhaps it's not. You decide. I just happened to notice that, and wondered whether it might be relevant.) Ideally the alerting regulations ought to give the TD guidance on what to do here. In England there is a proposed new addition to the regs: If you are not sure as to whether you and your partner have an alertable agreement, but are going to act as though you have, then you should alert, as you are likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement. This rule is intended for face-to-face play, of course, but I think the situation it covers is analogous to the one we have here. As you might have gathered from the above, I tend to agree with Bruce on this. But this is an indy, and North has been a lunatic, so I don't think I'd be adjusting the score on this hand. East gets a reminder that Capp is alertable.

Is it possible that partner has a sure trump trick as well as the ♣K to take? Declarer would have a very light 2♥ bid in that case, and might have played it differently. So I think I should try and give partner a spade ruff instead. Maybe partner should be helping me by playing a high trump under the ♥A if he wants a ruff.