olegru

Cannot agree more this your logic as a director. The only question I still have is: “The big mouth of a honest player who naively admitted that they have discussed this situation is the only evidence you are going to accept in support of illegal agreements or there are other possibilities exist? (In the real live, not in theory, of course.)” 2campboy: 2Vampyr: I believe it is the most funny and sad things about all this tread. Many people routinely open 1NT with singleton honor. Except of very few players, they never imagined that ACBL could prohibit opening 1NT on some hands they treat as balanced. Even if you will read General chart - existence of this limitation, in the best case, is far from obvious. Seems for me that dividing line is the players’ honesty. If player would like to give full disclosure and mention all their agreements (as required by law) he likely to get in troubles. If player prefer to pretend it is just bridge – he is save. I (as a new American) found that it is very true not only for ACBL, but also for much more aspects of living in US. If you would like to be honest, you have to pay a lot of money and you still often will be fined for accidentally breaks many rules. However, if you are ok with “small lies” your live is much cheaper and easy.

Thanks for clarification. Actually it was my point exactly. According the original message responder did not use any special checkback mechanism to ask opener if he has singletons, he merely bid transfer to spades. But opener did not complete the transfer and bid something else. It was the "some latter action which exposes the singleton" kind of bid, not "singleton control bid." All what I was trying to say is we are using wrong analogies trying to criminalize something. The only agreement that can be illegal is agreement to open 1NT with singleton. But if it is illegal way it was done so often on the highest level of game? They don't have an agreement and just psyching in the certain positions almost every time them have opportunity? :)

By itself? Why? Could you refer to any regulation to confirm your opinion? This make much more sense. Existing of this methods may be a proof that pair has illegal agreement to open 1NT with singleton. (Of course if agreement to open 1NT with otherwise balanced hand and singleton honor is illegal). But as a proof it is not any better of worse than other evidence. I believe it will not be too hard to check archives and collect the evidence that the number of top players opened 1NT with the singleton honor often enough to make it implicit agreement. Do they all play illegal methods too? Difference is huge. Bluff is legal. Psychic control is illegal. That is it. We have regulation that makes any agreements to control psychs illegal. We do not need to look for any logic or for any analogies. Any methods to find out if the bid was psych is illegal by regulation. Period. In our case there is no regulation to make follow up constructive bid illegal. Logic is exactly reversed. We have no limitation for the agreements about second bids, but our original bid maybe illegal. If our original bid indeed was illegal, questions about legality of our agreements about the second bid make no sense. The original illegal bid was enough to null the situation. But if our agreements about the original bid was legal, subsequent agreement cannot make it illegal. There is no analogies or better to say that existing analogy is misleading. And one more. I believe I wrote it in some earlier post, sorry for repeating. Lets take your example with psychic control. It is possible that bidding would go such a way that partner of psychic bidder was able to recognize the psych. He did not used any special psychic control bids, but opener made a subsequent bid that not possible according their system and responder was able to deduct that original bid was psych. Responder scratched his head and replied on your answer: "There is no such bidding possible. The only explanation according our system - he psyched originally." Are you going to call it psych control? I purposely make an unlucky wording; people in general are not lawyers and not linguists. (It is possible that original bid was not psych and they have illegal agreement and you have all rights to call director and report psych, but there is no psych control).

Two weeks ago. I hold something like: ♠ AKQJ9x ♥ xx ♦ xxx ♣ xx My partner open 1NT (15-17) and RHO overcalled with 2♠. Natural, not even two-suited. Guess who hold the 10 of ♠. :)

I am reading the latest ACBL Bulletin. Page 16. "A creative bid by Katz on this board produced another swing..." As you can guess Katz open 1NT with 15 points and singleton Queen. How often the big names in bridge open 1NT with singletons? I checked the 2014 USBF final. During the final match it was only 3 boards when player have an opportunity to open 1NT with singleton honor. And (surprise, surprise) in each of those 3 board one of players choose to open 1NT: http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_F_1_s3.htm#bd40 (Meckstroth) http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_F_1_s4.htm#bd52 (Bathurst) http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_F_1_s4.htm#bd58 (Moss) There were 2 more boards with opportunity to open 1NT with singleton in Semifinal, and again exactly 1 player used this opportunity: http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_SF_2_s3.htm#bd36 (Grego) http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/html/USBC2014_SF_2_s5.htm#bd8 (Diamond) I did not check earlier stages, I believe picture is clear. Majority of "big names" in bridge do not mind to open 1NT with singleton honor if they feel like that. I do not know if they discussed it with their partners or not, but common knowledge about such possibility is implicit agreement anyway. I don't know if in any of their system exist possibility for responder to discover if opener had a singleton or not; but there is nothing in law or charts that make that "follow up agreement" illegal anyway - only agreement about opening 1NT could be illegal. Problem is that nobody will dare to call 1NT opening with singleton made by any of famous people "the illegal agreement" - it is "just bridge" or "creative bid" as it was called in the bulletin. Of course if opening 1NT with singleton honor will be produced by not so well known (or foreign) player reaction will by quite different. And if they will naïve enough to admit that they already saw that kind of bids ... PS. One can argue that Vanderbilt or USBF final are not general chart tournament and in general chart tournament top players playing differently and never open 1NT with the singleton. Sorry, I simply do not believe in it.

I am not a specialist in American law - many years ago I graduated the law school in Russia - but for me "the correct legal ruling" is only ruling based on legislation. It can not be based on articles, specialists' commentaries or other nice stuff. To make a ruling I need regulation. Your idea to write to "rulings" and say "show me the regulation" looks the perfect solution for me. As a player, when I buy an entry I sign up to play according the bridge rules and sponsorship organization regulations. I don't have to read all articles on the ACBL site to check if they have additional requirements not listed in any official regulation. If you are expected that "rulings" will not be able to reply on which rules or regulations were based their claims in the article; but still expect player to follow their claims, not official regulation, I don't think it is the ignorance of players. Of course if once side has right to make any ruling their want, other side do not have to much choice but obey and tried to read minds of persons who made regulation instead of regulation. But, I believe we are discussing the bridge law. Again, I may be wrong, but I understood that after they have no special conventions that responder can employ to ask opener if he has singleton. He could bid Stayman, transfer to minor or to other major and singleton in opener's hand would stay undiscovered. But as it happened he transferred in suit with singleton and, as it happened, opener decided to not accept transfer that according their agreement could be done only in case if opener had the single Ace. I believe this agreement is one of the worst I saw in my live, but I really did not see anything in the laws and regulations that make it illegal. (Of course if they open 1NT only if singleton is Ace and the balanced cards. If they actually have an agreement to open 1NT on almost everything it is the completely different story, but I am basing my opinion on the original message). By the way, I personally hate to open 1NT with singletons (except of robot tournaments of course) and always ask partners do not to it playing with me.

Let me repeat once again: 2NT bid legal because: Question if 1NT bid with the singleton Ace is legal is murky; but because too many people routinely open 1NT with singleton Ace if otherwise hand is appropriate I would not dare to call 1NT opening with singleton Ace illegal. Note, definition of balanced hand as a hand with no singletons and voids is not rigid, it include word "generally" that, as far as I understand, means that possible could exist some balanced hands with singleton and/or unbalanced hands without singletons. And experienced pair with more half a brain could regularly open with singleton if they like, but never admit it is as an implicit or explicit agreement. As I said earlier I cannot see that pair in question had or used any methods to ASK for singleton. Possibility of refusal to accept transfer that shows specific hand does not create methods to ask for such kind of hands. Pair stated directly that a 2S super-accept shows a singleton ACE and hand in question, in fact, held a singleton ACE. Yes, I don't need anything else to accept they have and agreement that permit opening 1NT with singleton ACE and otherwise balanced hand. And I see no legal problem with that agreement. By the way, is it just me or tone of message I replied was below the standards of polite discussion? Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas.

As a director you are going to base your decision on something you don't even know it is a regulation or not? How players were supposed to know it? Decision to cancel the board base on illegal is a very serious one and surely should be done based on something more official than somebodies opinion or some article somewhere on the ACBL site. 1. No they don't. The do not have agreed methods for responder to determine if opener has a singleton. But sometimes bidding could go such a way that opener will have a chance to demonstrate singleton. 2. Even if they have such methods so what? Is there a regulation to prohibit pair to have such a methods? Exactly my point. Thanks :)

I am not a certified director and could be wrong, but I simply cannot find regulation that make it illegal. Could you point it to me? Note: GCC DISALLOWED 7 have nothing to do with the current issue:

If I understand correctly, pair in question do NOT have an agreement to open 1NT with singletons. What they do have it is the agreement to treat hand with singleton Ace as balanced. If I am not mistaken there is no rigid defenition of "balanced hand", world "generally" in definition implied that some other hands except hands without singletons could be considered as balanced. Hand in question is not less balanced compare to 6322 with empty doubleton. Because openning is natural, limitation about any convention agreements in future bidding should not be applied. Having agreement about use 2NT bid for such a very specific hand, looks extremly bad bridge for me, but not illegal. (Of course, if they have an agreement to open 1NT with different singletons, that makes 2NT illegal agreement )

Hi Gordon, It was Howell. I believe it was played in following order: table 1, table 3, table 2, table 4. Couple of players at table 1 and table 3 remember what they played and their stories are the same. I did not bother to ask players at tables 2 and 4, I am almost sure they will not be able to recall the board. I also almost positive that mistake was made on the table 2 - NS players took EW cards and after game put then to NS, but there are no prove of it. Unfortunately board was shuffled after the game and I am unable to check how it was played by 2 latest tables. Question is - do I have rights as a director to score the board differently from what was written in traveler or I should score as it is in traveler? Do I have right to discount the board as fouled?

I am scoring the result of small tournaments and found protocol with the following unbelievable results: Board 19 Table 1: 3NT from North, 12 tricks, 490 for NS Table 2: 3NT from West, 8 tricks, 100 for NS Table 3: 3NT from South, 8 tricks, 50 for EW Table 4: 3NT from West, 9 tricks, 600 for EW Looks like cards changed directions after been played on 2 tables but it was not noticed during the game. What is the correct way to score the board? I guess answer for this question should be right from the book but I am not the regular TD.

Wow! This explanation is amazing. You should go to politics.  By the way, agree with decision to delete that thread. I wish I did not see it :(

Coney Island. Amusement park and the Russian area. There were New York Aquarium too, but I am not sure if it is already re-open after Sandy. It is less number of good restaurants now that it used to be 10 years ago, but still more than enough. Russian food in general are not vegetarian, but she surely could find something tasty and appropriate for her. Honestly that place more interesting for visiting than for living. A little far from Manhattan, a little expensive to find the apartment, almost impossible to find parking spot for the car and so on. But very good public transportation. I am living there, but I am Russian and things like Russian bookstore and Russian speaking doctors are more beneficial for me than for her. I would probably more advise to live in Bay Ridge or in the Bensonhurst. Or maybe Sheepshead Bay. Anyway all those places are not really homogeneous and you (or her) certainly should take a closer look before make a decision.

Are you sure about it? If your average in robot games less than 40%, even GIB-partner could recall some other duties it needs to perform instead of playing with you. ;)

Me: "Sorry, partner, I guess I underbid" (putting down hand with 1 point after bidding 1NT - all pass). Partner: "Sure you did." (wrapping 11 tricks).

I believe better analogy would be to compare with soccer or other teams game if doping test of one of the players got positive after the game. Do they punish club (other than count game as lost) or not? I don't know the answer.

Couple of weeks ago. I am playing with novice partner. Opponents only vulnerable. Righty open 1 ♠, I jumped to 2NT. You should alert this, said LHO nicely. Why? asked my partner. (He did not learn what is alert yet.) Because this is artificial bid. It promises two minors, explained LHO. No it is not, said partner. It is natural bid with 19-21 points and ♠ stopper. (He does not learn unusual NT yet, but he knows I will not use any convention bids without discussions.) Lefty called director to report our unusual agreement and then … bid 3♥. Even my novice partner knew what to do. We wasted trick or two on defense but 1100 was good enough for top. By the way, if I am not mistaken, LHO was right about alert… but reverse way. Jump to 2NT that promise minors is not alertable, but natural jump with strong balanced hand is alertable in ACBL.

the bid was natural does not sound as a professional reply for alertable bid, but, out of curiosity, what would you do differently if they would properly explain 1 club as a Polish club right away?

I vote "Some other action - explain" in the second poll, because option "no second action to consider" is not available. :)

It was not comment, but was clueless enough. Yesterday I am playing in a very weak club with playing director and not very experienced partner. Bidding started: Me..............Director............Partner................North 3 clubs.........3 spades............4 clubs................4 spades pass............pas.................5 clubs................pas pass...............double................pass* Instead of putting Pass card on the table, Partner takes all her bids to bidding box. North looks shocked but did not say a work. South (Director) spent good 3 minutes trying to convince my partner to put her Pass card in case if North or I would like to make a bid. Finally bidding continue ………………………………….....................5 spades pass...............pass Instead of putting Pass card on the table, Director takes all his bids to bidding box. “Why!” screaming my partner. “I still have a bid.” “Now you see,” smiling Director. He put his Pass card on the table, my Partner double and … all three of them took their bids to bidding boxes. :) Some people never learn... But we all had a good laugh when I asked them to put their bid on the table and let me bid. Pass, of course.

2 weeks ago. Opponents bidding: East- West 1NT - 2♣ 2♦-4♥ pass West: "I thought your 2♦ was transfer to ♥." They played 4 ♥, down 2 on 36 points and 2-2 fit. There were 3 lines in protocol, our was in the middle. Both other pair played 7NT. One re-doubled made, other just doubled, down two. The only picture card on our line was Ace.

I have a problem with East-West action here. East first explanation was unclear. It looks like irregularity for me. Was there any damage because of this irregularity? I think so. If North would receive a clear explanation of 2 clubs bid she would probably pass in tempo. (I did not say it is a good bid, but looks like she would do it.) Would East take a risk to pass on not game forcing Stayman if North would pass in tempo? I dont know, but I believe it is harder compare with what happened on the table and law forces me to give benefit of doubts to innocent side. Giving unclear explanation East basically forced North to give away (by hesitation and additional questions) information about her hand and her bidding plans. Then he used this information to his benefit. I dont think we can let East-West to keep gains received with use of irregularity. I know it is a little harsh to punish EW, but if pair play unusual methods they needs to be extremely careful to explain they methods in a not ambiguous way. It is harder for North-South because pass by North is a very close to wild or gambling action.

ACBL land [hv=pc=n&s=skq9764ht7d6ca874&w=sj32h985dj72ct632&n=sa8hak32dakt5ckq5&e=st5hqj64dq9843cj9&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1d(precision%2C%202+%20dimonds)d2h(5+%20h%2C%204+%20sp%20weak%20hand)dp2sp3sp6dppp]399|300[/hv] Spots approximated. EW bids were alerted and explained as shown. EW claimed that explanations are correct and both bids are bluffs. NS had an accident due to different understanding of South double. Everithing kosher?

Yesterday in one of ACBL speedballs I got very lucky to score the large % of matchpoints and now curiouse how good was my score compare with all time best BBO ACBL speedballs scores. Is there any relatively easy way to see the list of the best resultes scored by winners of ACBL tournaments?