Echognome

Happy Birthday! Hope you have another enjoyable year.

True, but there is a fine line between complimenting your partner and patronizing them. Still, one pro I know admits to taking a patronizing attitude because that's what they think people are paying for. Most people that are wealthy enough to hire a pro have already been successful in the business world, or have been associated with someone that is. Their people skills are finely developed and they know when someone is sucking up. It's annoying to the opponents when you are complimenting partner on every other hand. If your partner is good enough to make the right play a lot, they won't need the attaboys. When they do make a very nice play, you can congratulate them. It will sound genuine (because it is) and it won't be clouded by the fact you gave them the same compliment when they took a finesse on the last hand. Sometimes, they will be having a dismal session and you need to look for places to compliment them for anything. My dad who ran a retail store for 35 years used to say, 'compliment in public; criticize in private". Exactly why I included the bolded part. :)

My exposures to this is limited, but I'm guessing I would fit into Adam's category, since I have played "pro" before, but not anywhere near an elite level. I pretty much agree with all of Phil's points. Here are a few more that come to my mind. 1. Play the system your partner is most comfortable with. If anything, suggest to play something more basic. You really want your partner focusing on the basics and not on trying to remember a fancy convention. (This advice can extend to other new partnerships, but it may take out some of the enjoyment as well.) 2. Try to avoid auctions that rely on subtleties. Perhaps the right bid with your regular partner is a cuebid at the 5-level, so that partner can identify your problem for not bidding keycard. Just take the bull by the horns and bid keycard and hope you are doing the right thing. The client feels relieved when you take control of the auction. 3. I would go a step beyond Phil's point 6. and say try to find points where you can encourage your partner. Tell them their play or bid was good where possible. Obviously you have to use some judgment here, but building their confidence helps a lot.

Happy Birthday Richard. Hope it's a good one.

From the animal world, I like: ostentation (peacocks) - for when they "puff up" murmuration (starlings) - "murmur" like the sound they make when they are discussing a hand shiver (sharks) - to describe how they move around the room intrusion (cockroaches) - to be cheeky parliament (owls) - to represent how they look over the game http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/about/faqs/animals/names.htm

I'm passing. Of course running could be right, but we're going to be a level higher.

I mostly blame North, although there are several calls I don't like. In order of the auction I dislike: 2♠ (prefer 3♣) 5♣ (although sympathetic, missing too many cards: ♠Q, ♥AK, ♦ and ♣ Aces) 6♣ (worst bid) surely not worth a drive to slam. Prefer 5♦.

Bridge is like sex. You better have a good partner or a good hand. Sex is like bridge. There is a better partner or a good hand. Sex is like bridge. It is good to get a better partner. Sex is like bridge. It is good to get a better partner. Equilibrium found!

Maybe so it won't consider expressions like "4th trick" to be misspelled?

I'm sure several people's answers may vary. The way I like to play them: a] Shows an invitational hand with 4-4 in the majors. Why? Because we can bypass bidding 1♠ to show a minimum balanced hand. Thus, with an invite with 4-5 in the majors, we first bid 2♥ and then opener can bid 2♠ showing 4 to find your spade fit. b] Opener is showing a 4-card spade suit in a minimum balanced hand. He is almost surely 4=2=4=3 for his 1♦ opening. c] Natural reverse showing 4-5 majors and GF values. Bonus question - I would game force the hand and choose option c] to show it.

1) There is nothing in the EBU regulations that says I have to inform the opponents verbally, as long as it is clearly marked on my convention card. 2) The method I propose is not encrypted, in that the key is in principle freely available to declarer. So I can't see any regulation that forbids it. The EBU does have a regulation that I think could be used to prevent a similar agreement in the auction (e.g. we play weak or strong NT depending on a similar key) but that only applies to calls, not to carding agreements. I first heard about this as a story about Brian Senior either doing this or saying this would be a funny method. I cannot verify that it actually came from Brian or that he ever played it. However, I can say that my partner and I tried it out for a little while. We did it so that we could concentrate on pips and, I'm sure, for the comedic/annoyance factor to the opponents. We did put the method in bold and highlighted both on the front of our cards and in the signalling area in the back. We played it for about a month or two. Most people never noticed or cared. We often forgot at least one board a session. It did have an upshot of having to figure out the best way to defend without being able to rely on your partner's signal. The one or two times opponents did notice, they just rolled their eyes and played on. So we just scrapped it and went with upside down signals.

Having played a lot of club bridge in england, it varies tremendously by club. There were some clubs where I felt the opponents were outright cheats. They would pause at will to convey values, ask about specific bids in the auctions (and get the corresponding leads), etc. At these clubs, the TD's were unwilling to enforce the laws, because that's what the clientele wanted. They always felt they did nothing wrong and were outraged. At other clubs, with good TD's (and the better players I might add), the TD's enforced the laws. Those that tried to take advantage of UI were dealt with and the occurrences were rare. I'm sure it helped that we had two national TD's, one regional TD, and one county TD. I guess people sorted themselves accordingly and I know where I enjoyed playing. There are always two sides to the coin.

Aquahombre obviously has an axe to grind with the alerting rules. I agree with David that this grumbling only detracts from the problem posed.

Get out!

Well, I retract the "even more dangerous" and change it to "possibly more dangerous." If EW cannot make game, then jumping one level higher is worse, if the opponents choose to defend. If EW can make game, then yes, you are looking for 300 or 500 vs their game. However, if you hit 800 or 1100, then you are likely worse, unless they can make slam. There are many, many factors of course, since maybe they do not find the right strain, or you push them up to a higher level and they go down. Of course you could be phantoming. But I certainly don't buy that the opponents having more strength makes it more safe as much as you don't buy that it makes it more dangerous.

I always thought encryption was disallowed as signals, but not in the bidding, although it may vary by regulating authority or I may be outdated.

A direct 4♠ seems clear enough.

My goodness. This thread has become a griping session for people to complain about all of the bad behaviors of everyone else. To the person complaining that they are never host, they obviously just need to learn how to start a table themselves. A little education goes a long way. I think for the main issue at the start of the topic, there have been some requests for a chance to the hierarchy of the hosting system. I'm sure Uday understands the issue thoroughly by now.

I think that 3♣ should be alerted (unexpected meaning = forcing). So on that basis I would rule MI. Now, comes the tougher question. North claims he would have bid 4♥ given the correct meaning. I personally don't believe him. The only difference in the auction to him is that his opponents have shown more strength and thus made a 4♥ jump even more dangerous. Furthermore, I find it quite likely that West would have found a 4♠ call regardless (after P - P - ?). So, if I believed North, I would at most give a weighted ruling. Something like 75% of 4♠ and 25% of 4♥X, although I'm not confident about the weighting.

I assume you mean E/W asked the TD to look at North's 4♦ bid. Hesitation was agreed, so I think it's just a matter of whether North would compete and I'd like to poll this one as well. I personally wouldn't sell out, but I don't know how others feel. As a side note, I can definitely imagine David saying, "Don't tell me it's this bloody hand again!"

How did E/W say they were damaged? (I assume 3♠ made?) I think the UI does suggest South has some values, but it's not clear they were offensive values. North will probably argue that the opponent's failure to bid game means South has some values. I think that Pass is an LA, but I'm not sure if 3♠ is suggested by the UI.

I think your "very few exceptions" clause covers a lot more than you think. (1♥) - 2NT = Minors - Alert or No Alert? 1NT - (2♥) - Dbl = Takeout - Alert or No Alert? 1♥ - 3♥ = Limit - No Alert I assume. 1♥ - 3♥ = Preempt - Alert I assume. 1♥ - (1♠) - 3♥ = Preempt - Alert or No Alert? 1♣ - (1♠) - Dbl = Takeout - Alert or No Alert? I'm sure we can add on to the list. My point is that alerting is a LOT more complicated when you consider all of the auctions with competition.

1. If you read our arguments, we're not saying that double should be takeout. We're saying that, in fact, most people play double as penalty. However, the alerting rules (in the EBU) state that a penalty double in this situation should be alerted. Therefore, we have as facts that the regulations state a penalty double should be alerted. The player in question did not think it was a penalty double (or else it makes no logical sense to raise partner). And we are going to say "no adjustment because you should have asked?" 2. Your simple rules mean that you would have to alert 1♥ - Dbl if it were for takeout. Seems worse than the current system.

Has partner promised any values? I say he hasn't. So why don't I wait to hear what he has to say? If I had a better fit I might act, but not with only 2-card support.

No, you'd never get an adjustment, because when responder doesn't alert the double the overwhelming likelihood is that it's a failure to alert rather than a correctly not alerted takeout double. That seems perfectly sensible to me, and very different from the examples you gave earlier. I understand the point, but doesn't it seem non-sensical? Why would you raise to 4♠ over the penalty double unless you thought it was takeout? So obviously this player doesn't think that double is penalty. Perhaps the player is a beginner? It wouldn't even make sense to "try one on" by raising, when 3♠X would give you a better score just by passing (as opener isn't going to be pulling). So all roads of rationality lead to advancer not believing the non alerted double to be takeout and there should be an adjustment (back to 3♠X which is what would have happened had the player known it was penalty!). I wouldn't feel bad for the offending side at all. First because they are getting the result they would have if they had alerted and second because it is there responsibility to know the alerting rules. The consequence of this is that it may lead people to be unhappy with the alerting rules. But that is what the rules are. You and I and most people we know might know that double here is penalty. But then what are we supposed to do with a hand where it doesn't make sense? Suppose we had five-card support? Are we going to ask, hear that it is penalty and then pass?