olegru

Why? Could you point out to the law from the Bridge Code, which asks me to explain my bids in Indi? We should not create laws by ourself we already have The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge are designed to define correct procedure. Lets read it. What should I alert? - Special Partnership Agreements. Should I alert anything else? - Not. Do I have any special Partnership Agreements in indi with accident partner? - I believe not. Of couse untill we actualy agreed something. Opponents can read my partners profile as good as me and guess as good as me. Even if partner put 4-way transfer (for example) in his profile he doesn't know I read it and agreed it. We do not have agreement to play 4-way transfer untill I told my partner something like "Your profile is OK." Unless I have any special information about this particular partner I do not have to alert anything just because bridge law doesn't ask me to do it.

Write Norths name in "black notebook." If I would see him one more time doing such a risky psyche I would ask him to play more seriouse in my tournaments. After third time I would ban him from my tournament.

Friendly robber at home, we were beginers. Me(North)......... My friend............My wife..........My friend's wife 1♠.................dbl........................2♣....................2♦ 2♥.................pass......................3♣....................3♦ 3♥.................dbl........................4♣....................4♦ pass..............pass......................5♣....................pass pass..............dbl.......................redbl......................5♦ dbl................redbl....................6♣.....................pass pass...............dbl.......................pass......................6♦ dbl..................pass....................7♣....................dbl pass................pass.....................pass [hv=n=sajxxxxhaxxxxxdxc&w=sq10xxhxxdkj10xxxxc&e=skxhkqj10daqxxxcqj&s=sxhxdcak1098765432]399|300|[/hv]

If I will express my real emotions about the idea of author of original post, I probable will be banned. In a real (not virtual) club, opponents got to 4♥ with 18 pc and flat distribution. How on the hell they were supposed to know all finesses are gonna work? Even if one of them had shown his hand to another it can't help them to find this game. You got unlucky on that board. And what? I was once in you opponents possition. I oppened 1NT (15-17), partner had 11 flat points with 4333 distribution, asked Stayman, and after I replied 2♠ just bid invitational 3♠ wich I passed. Underbid of couse, but with flat distribution and very bad points it was not complitely unreasonable. As it happened my partner was right. Opponent's spade divided 5-0, ather suits didn't behave too. No finesse works. I got 1 down - top, because everyone else tryed to play game and got at least down 2. After play finished one of our opponents starts screaming for director and complain about our "cheating." What should I feel about it? What would you feel? Why they think they have rights to insult people without any reasons? Do you think it is not insult if you are screaming all over the room to director something like "I believe they are cheating?" What should they do is quietly came to directors desk after the round and report him in private about "wierd situation." If director will have number of reports in his "black notebook" he can start invistigation.

Lets count: EW have 10 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +3 = 760 after pass from S > 620 in 4♠ after 2♣ from S. --> pass is bad. EW have 9 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +2 = 560 > 140 in 3♠ --> pass is bad. EW have 8 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +1 = 360 > 110 in 2♠ --> pass is bad. Conclusion: Pass is ridiculous.

Yesterday, on another site I had absolutely similar bidding. I became a declarer, player who passed his partners takeout dbl was my close friend and 100% there were no cheating. He just didn't see his partner's dbl. It can happened. But only once.

When you became a declarer do not think about your partner's bidding on current board - if you do not want him to think about your declarer's play during the bidding of the next board.

I believe Gerardo is right. Lets say for example I am playing some variant of the Polish club. After I bid 1 ♣ I will allert and type "Polish club" in the "explanation box." My partner will alerd his 1♦. Probably he will not write any explanation in "explanation box" untill opponents will press it asking for clarification or ask question. Lets say no one asked us for clarification. I bid 1♥ on the next round of bidding and now one of my opponents press 1♣ bid, asking for explanation. What would I do? I deffinitly will not discribe all 5 different meanings for 1♣ bid in the our system. Explanation box is not big enoght for it and my opponents do not really want to know what could 1 ♣ oppening mean in Polish club. What they need to know is a variant which was shown by my real action - 1 ♣ and then 1 ♥. As a results my first explanation "Polish club" will be replaced by "12+ pc and 4= ♥". I see, it could look confusing but it is very natural. If opponents were confused by place of explanation they always can ask question or look at CC. Of course director can do the same. If scenario of this case was similar to my example - I can't see any problem. Result must stand. We alerted and opponents had opportunity to ask but used it too late. Much worse case if 1♣ and 1♦ bids weren't alerted. In this case opponents didn't know they need to ask, untill it was too late. They asked before final pass, and director saw answers - but in this case we can see failure to alert in time and director need to adjust. And hardest question is what to do if only one of us alerted. F.e. I alerted 1 ♣, but Partner forgot to alert artifitial 1♦. If in opponents profiles "advanced" or higher I would not adjust - they could deffend themself by asking. But I will deffenetly to do it, if opponents not expirienced. They do not have to know what hell is Polish club and do not have to bother to correct my partners failure to alert.

Sorry, have to disagree. To tell the true this statement doesn't have much sence for me. How partnership could have an explicit agreement for meaning pass after opponents double on Michael's cue-bid if in fact they have agreed do not play Michael's cue-bid? Agree, but I believe he still allowed to play bridge. As you correctly noticed One opponent shows 4+♥, another 3+♥, he has 3 more. Partner can't have more than 3♥. Something must be wrong. You right he shoud not wake up if "alarm information" only came from partners alert and/or explanation. But it is not the case here. Opponents double and pass are another source of information and now he has rights to wake up.

If 2♥ bid promise ♥ and minor they need to alert it. But where is damage? As far as I know it is not enogh for EW to say: We were damaged by failure to alert. Director must ask them: What would you do differently, if 2♥ bid was alerted? And only if they will give a fast reply and director will beleive this reply is not selfmade in order to save a board, he can make an ajustment. In this case if EW would not add anything to their content I will not ajust anything. But if they would and their arguments will make sence for me ... why not?

5. recently I got compain from a player about the lead out of turn :) 6. "Director, how to play bridge?" - I wasn't actualy too surprised to find "expert" in profile of that player.

Agree and disagree at the same time. ;) First, 2♠ must be alerted if NS is expirienced partnership and they have agreement (explicit or implicit) about meaning of 2♠ bid in such of auction. But what if they just a picked up partnership and 2♠ was based on a common sence? I would probably alert anyway and explain as a "no agreement" but not sure it is the best way to handle.

Are you kidding? For me "Nobody in his right mind would bid" 7NT with North hand after 6NT from the partner. :rolleyes: We must be much more caution with accumption some kind of bid as an unnatural; bid which absolutly unacceptable for one player could be just right for another. I can't see anything suspition at all at Bonsaiman example.

coffee3 - I`ll show you smth. ;) You see? TOURNEY RULES must not be in conflict with Laws of the Contract bridge. Law 40 is the law of the Contract bridge. When any TD here CREATE AND TYPE THE TOURNEY RULES which is in conflict with Law 40 of the Contract bridge he made something, what he has no rights to do. At least if he is thinking he is directing brigde torney, not another game tourney. Naturaly, If I am playing in those tornament I will follow rules of tournament I am playing. But I know I am not playing bridge, I am playing some other game in this tournament. All what I want, I want rest of people playing there to know it too - this is not the bridge tournament, it is siplified bridge, pseudo-bridge, super-puper-bridge, call it as you want, but do not pretent it is the bridge tornament.

Hi uday, I think it is not as innocent as it looks. Lets pretend – I am not too experienced player, who never read Code LAWS of CONTRACT BRIDGE. (I believe there are a lot of players like this on BBO) I played in that pseudo-bridge tournament and I learn psycho is prohibited. Now I am playing in real bridge tournament and (my God!) someone bluff. How will I feel? What will I do? Of course I will feel terrible. I’ll think someone cheated me. I’ll scream for td, I’ll attack my opponents, I’ll argue with td if he tells me everything is ok. I’ll completely destroy my own pleasure from game. I’ll insult my opponents. If it will be online game, probably I even turn off the PC and let the td to search for substitutes. Is it only my imagination? I don’t think so. In one tournament description on BBO I read message from TD “I got to tired to solve conflicts with bluff and decided to disallow psych on my tournaments.”

What do you think - Are you directing bridge tourney or some other "My game" torney? B)

Sorry, I would advice you better way to learn. Open the The International Code LAWS of CONTRACT BRIDGE and try to find law, which you use to adjust that board. If you find any - you learn something. If you find no brige law give you rights to adjust board in this case - you learn something else. Personally I advice you to read this: My understanding - if it was indi you are compilely wrong. If it was pair game and NS was established partnership, you should ask South did they have expirience of similar psychic bid's before. If yes, I did right thing to adjust. If not - you have to let result stay, but advice players to alert 3rd hand's bid next time and explain it could be a bluff, because starting now they already have "partnership understandings" thich must be disclosed. Even more, you can restrict the use of such "partnership understandings" by ask them do not bluff any more.

Just curious, In eurobridge.org site result of match between Barel and Lavazza is 18:0 looks very suspision. http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05T...=521&qroundno=6 Score on swangames.com is different. http://www.swangames.com/rama/traveller.ph...406&direction=X Do you know what happened?

I am not sure, if it is correct. When I directed my first BBO tounament, my friend, who is experienced BBO TD adviced to ban kibitzers because of substitute issue. Free tournaments are always short of subs and director is not happy if he can't use registred substitutes, because they decided to kibitz.

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=skqj10xxhxd9xxcajx&w=saxxxhkq10xxdakxcx&e=sxxh82dqj1082cxxxx&s=sxhajxdxxxckq10xxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 3NT from S. 1. West leads ♦A, 8 from East. 2. West ♥K, 2 from East, small from West, small from S. Clocked online tournament, round finished. You are director, what will you adjust? EW using standard signals.

I do not think 3♣ would be automatic bid by S, if he had the correct explanation. He would know he will have a chance to compete on the next round after 2♠ from the left and his hand became worse - 3 cards in the opponents suit and only 2 small in the possable partner's ♥. After proper explanation initial pass from South became a real possability, and Director should imagine the worst scenarium for EW. East SouthWest North 2 ♥ - pass - 2♠ - pass pass - 3 ♣ - pass - pass pass making 3.

3♠ With clubs void I'll prefer to play on 7-1, then 4-4.

I can't show my hand to the partner. It's me - who has to make a dicission about final contract. And all what I need for it is number of partners key cards. Bid is 4NT. If partner has 3 - will play 7♠, 2 - 6♠, just 1 - 5♠. zero - sorry partner. (But hidden singleton clubs will give me some possability escape in 5♠ even in this unlucky case)

1♥ I would think about 2 ♣ oppening if I had any detailed system after it , but is not enoght to risk get in darkness after ♠ preemptive. I have much less deffence, then my partner would expect after 2♣ opening. Good hand for 4♥ opening if we are playing it as a good hand (and 4♣ opening as a week transfer preemptive in ♥, but it is not in bridge base advanced)

1♥