Trinidad

How about 3♥-3♠;3N-4♣;4♦ 4(+) clubs; 4432; with diamonds: (23)44 3♥-3♠;3N-4♣;4♥ 4(+) clubs; 4432; with hearts: 2434 or 3424 3♥-3♠;3N-4♣;4♠/NT 4(+) clubs; 4432; with spades: 4(23)4 3♥-3♠;4♣-4♦;4♥ 4(+) clubs; no side suit; (233)5 3♥-3♠;4♣-4♦;4♠/NT 4(+) clubs; no side suit; 3334 3♥-3♠;4♦ 4(+) clubs; (224)5; with diamonds: 2245 3♥-3♠;4♥ 4(+) clubs; (224)5; with hearts: 2425 3♥-3♠;4♠/NT 4(+) clubs; (224)5; with spades: 4225 3♠-3N;4♣-4♦;4♥ no 4(+) m; single suited hearts; 5332 3♠-3N;4♣-4♦;4♠/NT no 4(+) m; single suited hearts; 3433 3♠-3N;4♦ no 4(+) m; both M's: 44(32) 3♠-3N;4♥ no 4(+) m; single suited spades; 5332 3♠-3N;4♠/NT no 4(+) m; single suited spades; 4333 3N-4♣;4♦ 4(+) diamonds; 4432; with clubs: (23)44 3N-4♣;4♥ 4(+) diamonds; 4432; with hearts: 2443 or 3442 3N-4♣;4♠/NT 4(+) diamonds; 4432; with spades: 4243 or 4342 4♣-4♦;4♥ 4(+) diamonds; no side suit; (233)5 4♣-4♦;4♠/NT 4(+) diamonds; no side suit; 3343 4♦-4♥ 4(+) diamonds; (224)5; with clubs: 2254 4♥-4♠ 4(+) diamonds; (224)5; with hearts: 2452 4♠/NT 4(+) diamonds; (224)5; with spades: 4252 The basis is that 3♥ shows clubs, 3♠ denies a minor and the rest shows diamonds. The clubs and diamond showing auctions are symmetric and so are the 4333's and 5332's. There is one shape that is mapped twice (because of the symmetry in the minors): (23)44: 3♥-3♠;3N-4♣;4♦ 4(+) clubs; 4432; with diamonds: (23)44 3N-4♣;4♦ 4(+) diamonds; 4432; with clubs: (23)44 Perhaps you can use that to differentiate between 2344 and 3244 (and find the magic 7♠ in the Moysian ;) )? Rik

The "constraint" is that Adam is only interested in the 4+ card suits. He is not interested in the whole distribution. For 44, the combinations are: M's m's rounds points reds blacks I think you get the point that there are 4 suits that can hold the 5 carder in the 5332 pattern. ;) Rik

I very much agree with Jeremy. The Laws need a 'clean up' for all the "should", "must", "could", etc. In particular the combination with negatives should be avoided since constructions like "must not" have different meanings on the different sides of the Atlantic. And if people who have English as their native language assign different meanings to these constructions, what do you think will happen to people who don't have English as a native language? Rik

I am sorry. I tried to whisper. Shhh, don't tell anybody. Another little secret: You can make the text easier to read by selecting it with your mouse. ;) Rik

Not everybody owns a law book. And not everybody knows how to read it. That is why we have this forum. ;) Rik

You know that you just got yourself a PP for using the "c word"? B) Seriously, for a whole lot of players (of all levels) it is really hard to deal with UI ethically. Not being able to deal with UI does not mean that you are cheating. And yes, I fully agree with Frances, and I would adjust. But I have seen way too many UI cases where the offending side didn't have a clue what they had done wrong to accuse any UI user of cheating, let alone blatant cheating. I have seen beginners and top players go wrong there. I remember one case where I ruled that a top player had used UI. He wanted to appeal saying: "Don't take it personal, but your ruling was absolute bogus". Since it was late and the tournament would continue the next morning (and since I more or less knew what was going to happen the next morning, I told him: "fair enough, do you mind if we do that tomorrow morning?". That was fine with him. The next morning, he comes to me and, as I had expected, asks me to please forget about the appeal. But he went on to add: "This was one of the most blatant forms of use of UI that I have ever seen. And I did it myself, and at the time that I did it I was 100% convinced that it was perfectly OK." I believe the guy 100%. Away from the table things look a lot different. Rik

Some warped sense of justice based on ignorant rumors of what happened in the Vanderbilt made them think they were justified in terms of taking the Law into their own hands. I admit that that is a possible explanation. Rik

I may not have been clear. I don't think that you (explicitly) adjust your agreements based on the opponents' 1NT defense. I think that you have different "psyching" habits depending on the opponents' 1NT defense. I think that you are well aware of each others habits which makes them implicit partnership agreements. To phrase crystal clear what I think: "You know that Brad's 1NT openings will look like a 15-17 balanced hand when the opponents play penalty doubles. When the opponents play conventional doubles and Brad is in 3rd seat at favorable vulnerability, you know that Brad often holds a 15-17 balanced and a few times per year he will have something very different." And I argue that that is not "general bridge knowledge". It is knowledge specific to your partnership. That makes it an implicit partnership agreement, with all the consequences (disclosure and regulations on agreements). I know that you think this is a psyche. And I know that you are sincere. But let me ask you this: I told you what I think might be the reason for your opponents' actions. Why do you think your opponents acted as they did? Rik

That seems like an excellent idea. Rik

Either you are pregnant, or you aren't: either a psyche was fielded or it was not. I think it unsuitable for this forum to report that other people thought something about a field. Please either produce the hand, the auction, and let us judge, or do not mention what other people thought. Some people thought Hitler's actions were correct: that hardly justifies them or anything else. Nothing in any of the posts by JanM or anyone else justifies hiding your agreements. Two wrongs do not make a right. There is some feeling in htis thread that if Fred's partner did [or did not] do something, then ... I have no sympathy for this: breaking the rules is irrelevant to what someone else does or does not do. Civil disobediaence is a fancy name for breaking the Law and is on a par with stealing. David, One can make a case in saying that Fred's opponents hardly broke the rules. They didn't hide any relevant agreement from Fred or his partner. There couldn't possibly have been any damage either. What is going on is that Fred plays "traditional 1NT openings" if the opponents play penalty doubles and "creative 1NT openings" when opponents play conventional doubles. However, the opponents play conventional doubles against "traditional 1NT openings" and penalty doubles against "creative 1NT openings". This creates an impossible situation, known as The Loop. This impossible situation has been solved eons ago, in the only logical way possible: Agreements have to be disclosed in the order that the bids are made. Thus, Fred and Brad have to state first what kind of 1NT opening they play and stick to that. Then the opponens state their defense. And not the other way around. Before the play, Fred and Brad asked for the NT defense (which is still fine, since you may want to be prepared for your subsequent bidding: Lebensohl, etc.) [against the declared "traditional 1NT openings"] . The opponents answered truthfully that they play conventional doubles [against the declared "traditional 1NT opening"]. After that, Brad and Fred changed their 1NT opening strategy to "creative 1NT openings", which they apparently are known to do, at least to the extent that the opponents knew that. And that is not fine, since it invokes The Loop. Fred and Brad didn't disclose their new agreements to the opponents either. This wasn't fine either (nor was it necessary since I get the impression that a significcant part of the tournament trail, at least including their opponents, already knows about that). Then, when the situation came up and Fred opened 1NT, which must have been the creative 1NT opening, the opponents explained their agreements exactly as they were against the creative 1NT opening. The only valid point that Fred can have is that he wasn't able to discuss any subsequent bidding with his partner, since he didn't know up front that the opponents played penalty doubles. But we can be pretty sure that Fred and Brad know how to play after a penalty double of 1NT, so the odds that they would be damaged because of that were very close to 0. Rik

I had thought about it, but since I already thought my post was getting very long... I think it is a matter of how you approach the issue. One could say, like you do, that the next team gets an unfair advantage and are given a X IMP carry over "out of the blue". One could also look at it from the other end and consider the ability to finish matches on time and avoid penalties a bridge skill. If we take two teams of otherwise equal bridge skill, then the faster team is a better team than the slow team. The slow team will rake up slow play penalties and at the finish line ranks lower than the fast team. This is how pairs games and round robin / swiss teams events are taking care of the problem. In a knockout event, the teams are usually seeded according to strength. If this strength includes the ability to finish on time, then the faster team will be seeded higher than the slower team. Let's say that we seed the slow team 8 and the fast team 7. In the round of 8, the number 1 seed will play team 8 and the number 2 seed plays team 7. Is it now unfair that the number 1 seed will get an advantage for meeting the weaker team (expressed in a penalty carry over from the previous match) whereas the number 2 seed meets the bridge skill wise equally strong number 7 team, but doesn't have the advantage of the penalty carry over? I don't think that is more unfair than seeding in the first place (which I happen to think is a good thing). Of course, there will be a transition period where slowness is not reflected in the seeding. But after a few rounds of tournaments, this transition period will be over. If the problem is fixed, it is fixed. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Rik

I think the idea that one psyche creates an agreement is terrible. If he is going to record every psyche with the intention of declaring them agreements, he ought to also record every deviation any pair makes. The first time someone opens 1N with a singleton: agreement. The first time someone responds to an opening bid with 5 HCP: agreement. The first time someone opens a five-card weak two-bid: agreement. Of course, one psych doesn't create an agreement, just like seeing one swallow doesn't mean it's Summer. But the OP wasn't talking about one psyche. He was talking about frequent psyches. And if you see many swallows it is Summer. (At least here in Europe; in Africa it is probably the other way around.) Rik

Just for the record. I am not really reacting. Fred's opponents were reacting and I am trying to explain what their motives could have been. In my view, if opponents know that your 1NT openings are regularly not what is described on the convention card then your partner must know that too. Then you have an implicit agreement. Bidding according to an implicit agreement is no longer psyching. (BTW, the fact that partner bids as if it is a genuine 15-17 1NT opening is not relevant. The only relevant fact is that partner knows that you regularly have something that isn't remotely like a 15-17 NT.) And, just like with all agreements, implicit agreements must be disclosed and can be barred. Rik

What surprised me most in the description of the appeal is that it seems that the AC reasoned something like: - 3♠ is an awful bid. - There must have been something going on. - Pass is an LA. - Adjust Furthermore, the description is not really clear. I assume that the TD was called for the first time after the 3♠ bid, rather than after the 3♣ bid. I am not sure whether there actually was a BIT. But the table director can judge that much better than I (or the AC) can, so we go with the director at the table and say that there was a BIT. His decision is better than any decision anybody else can make. Then my reasoning is just like Tim's: The BIT indicated that South was inclined to do something other than Pass. This could be doubling or bidding on. What alternative was made more attractive by the BIT? Passing, doubling or bidding 3♠? Doubling caters to all possible reasons for the BIT. Passing caters to the possibility that South wanted to double. Bidding 3♠ caters to the possibility that South wanted to bid on. Therefore, we can demonstrate that a double would have been suggested by the BIT, regardless of the reason for the BIT. For Pass and 3♠, we can't demonstrate that the BIT suggested these alternatives. If we can't demonstrate that, then there has not been an infraction. No infraction means: Result stands. Rik

Your statistical argument makes sense, but not enough. You play that a limit raise shows 10-12. Let's just keep this range for simplicity's sake. After the hesitation, it is unlikely to be 11 and more likely to be 10 or 12. So far, we agree (I think). Your conclusion is that it must be 10. After all, given that we have 13-14 ourselves(otherwise there is no problem), the average strength for the other players must be (40-13)/3=9. And if 9 is the average then 10 will be more likely than 12. Sounds good, but... you make 2 assumptions: 1) You are playing with a 40 point deck. Most deals have more points, particularly when there is a fit (as in this case). This means that you underestimate the expected strength in partner's hand. 2) You assume that the opponents can have all possible hands. If the opponents know how to play bridge, they can't. LHO is unlikely to have a good hand, since he passed the 1♠ opening. You can add to that the possibility that 1♠ may have been a second seat opening and it is clear that, again, you underestimate the strength in partner's hand. All in all, I think that the probability that partner has 10 is about equal to the probability that partner has 12. Anyhow, the difference is too small to calculate at the table. If you still disagree with me on this then just assume, for the sake of argument, that the probabilities are equal. After all, the 1♠-3♠ auction was used as an example of how you should reason when you don't know which of the alternatives is made more attractive by the UI. Do you allow both LA's or forbid both of them and adjust? The point is that partner wasn't strong enough to bid game. He was considering whether he was strong enough to bid game and concluded that he wasn't. The key is that partner can have two hands. On the one side partner may have stretched. He has considered a single raise, but thought he was just a bit too strong for that (say 9 really nice points, reevaluated to 10). On the other side partner may have been considering a game forcing raise and concluded that he wasn't good enough for that (12 nice points, but after consideration not nice enough to force game). The UI told you that partner is unlikely to have the straight down the middle 11 point hand. Rik

How about if we make that Redouble U? or XXU? ;) Rik

With one partner I play 3♣ as Puppet Stayman and 3♦ as 55+ ♥+♠ and slam interest. (1NT-4♣ is: "Choose between 4♥ and 4♠.".) With another partner I play 1NT-3m as (34)(15). Rik Rik, your 3D and 4C bid could easily be compressed into one bid, freeing up a bid for something else. 5/5 minors? Sure, it could, but we don't want to. From a useful space principle point of view, there is certainly enough room to put the 55+ Majors "to play game" hands in the 3♦ bid. But you don't want that. The idea is similar to a Texas transfer with distributional hands that are essentially preemptive openings (weak 2 or 3M). One of the reasons to use Texas transfers is to bid immediately to the level that you want to play at (if you know that). If you would use a Jacoby transfer with such a hand, you give the opponents the room to find a save or even a making contract. Our 4♣ response to 1NT is something similar, but now with both majors. Think of a hand like ♠KJxxx ♥KJxxx ♦x ♣xx or even ♠Qxxxxx ♥Qxxxxx ♦x ♣-. I know that it won't happen often, but when it comes up, it invariably scores. The question should therefore be: would there be an alternative, better use for the bid. There is a convention that comes to mind immediately, but I don't think it is better. :unsure: Both minors would be a good idea, but we already have a good way to show 55+ minors (sign off, GF and "to play 5m"). Rik

This is still in the EBU (England) context, right? Rik I recall a post from Chamaco about how to deal with an Italian rule saying that one can only play two different systems. Which was a problem since they liked to play several different systems. Anyway, it wasn't clear how much you have to change your system before it becomes a different system. Pairs who play the Lorenzo system play at least 3 systems: - Nonvul 1st/2nd: Pass shows 8-11 points so the rest of the system is mended to contain all weak hands. - Nonvul 3rd/4th: The system is a follow-up to the opening pass. - Vul: Probably some normalish system Since the system has (or used to have) some popularity among quasi-serious Dutch and Belgian pairs (and Hok Amsterdam used to play it in the highest Dutch division) it would surprise me if it was illegal in those countries. Anyway, agree with Richard, such rules are silly as they raise lots of interpretation problems. Of course it is undesirable if a pair has 50 conventions that opps need to discuss defense against and want to play it in a two-boards-per-round event. But if a pair wants to play stone-age Acol, Stone-age Precision, WJ2005 and SAYC under four different circumstances I can't see how it could be a problem. Helene, I am surprised to see this coming from a mathematician. :unsure: In uncontested auctions in bridge, there are only 2 seats: 1st seat and 2nd seat. What many people consider 3rd and 4th seat are just responses to a Pass by 1st or 2nd seat. ;) Rik

I'm not sure you are right here. The laws are about restoring equity. So if the bidding goes: 1♠ - 3♠ ? Now if 3♠ promises 10-12 HCP and 3-4 ♠ we would expect opener to bid: - 4♠ with 15+ HCP - pass with 11-12 HCP With 13-14 HCP opener would judge his hand and pass with some hands and bid 4♠ with others. If responder hesitates prior to his bid, one would expect that he somehow stretched his hand to make that bid. Off cause you need to know what alternative bids like 2NT, 4♠ or 2♠ would have shown. How do you know that responder stretched? The point of this auction (and the reason why it is given as an example) is that the UI tells you that responder doesn't have a "middle of the road" invitation. But you don't know what side of the road his invitation is. It could be an overbid (a stretch, where responder was thinking of making a single raise) or an underbid (where responder was considering a GF raise). But you can't tell which one it is. So, if you hold the 13-14 point hand, you are free to bid whatever you like. Both passing and bidding 4♠ are logical alternatives (LA's). But the UI ("I don't have a middle of the road invitation") doesn't make one LA demonstrably more attractive than the other. Rik

I saw this in the August 2 bulletin: I don't know what they mean by "30-day probation". Could it be something like: "If you do this again this month then... we get really angry at you!"? Rik

Is there a possibility that these debtors are just careless/busy? By this I mean that they can financially afford to pay late. Financial incentives or penalties don't have much of an impact to people who have enough money. If they are busy and want to spend time with friends and family, paying bills on time may not be their highest priority. If that is the case, then some form of automated payment will do the trick. Rik

With one partner I play 3♣ as Puppet Stayman and 3♦ as 55+ ♥+♠ and slam interest. (1NT-4♣ is: "Choose between 4♥ and 4♠.".) With another partner I play 1NT-3m as (34)(15). Rik

I think "reserving rights" is a misnomer. You do not lose any right by not reserving them. What it is all about is agreeing on facts, when the evidence is still fresh. When there was a small -but significant- BIT, players will easily agree to that when it is pointed out immediately. And if all agree, just play on. There is no reason to call the TD, since a BIT is not an infraction. But if the TD is called when the board is finished and the players didn't immediately agree on the facts as they happened, it is very difficult to agree on these facts now. There are two obvious reasons for this: 1) Five minutes have gone by. The alleged offending side will have forgotten how long each player has been thinking. But the non offending side knows it exactly. They have been thinking about this during the whole board (and possibly exagerated things in the process :P ). 2) After the board has been played, there is a result directly depending on these facts. To be specific: The alleged offending side has bid on after a BIT where pass may have been an LA. And it gave them a good result. (Otherwise there was no damage and players don't call the TD if they are not damaged.) This leads to players retreating in their trenches: allegations and denials. In contrast, when players agree to a BIT as it occurs, it doesn't have any consequences yet. The trenches aren't needed. I don't like the use of the phrase: "I reserve my rights." It is vague (what rights? and what for?) and it sounds pedantic. It's a phrase for Secretary Birds. A friendly "Do we all agree that it took some time to double?" works much better: It is normal language that everyone understands and it is specific. Rik

I have a suggestion that might work for penalizing offenses that both sides are responsible for (such as slow play) in knockout tournaments: Don't apply canceling penalties (for offenses that teams are jointly responsible for) to the match in play. Apply the part of the penalty that was cancelled to the next match. Thus: Team A play B and Team C play D. If team A is deemed to be slow while B isn't, you apply the full penalty to A in the A vs B match. If both teams are equally slow, you give them a penalty each. Instead of letting these penalties cancel each other, you carry this penalty to the next match. Of course, this system cannot be applied to the final, since there won't be a next match. But I think it will make the final faster too. There are two reasons for this. 1) The teams have been forced to play faster during the whole tournament. They are now used to this pace and will continue in the final. 2) The slow teams have a bigger chance of being knocked out. Call it evolution: Survival of the fastest. To clarify the procedure I will give an example of how to apply the penalties. Suppose: - team A gets a 3 IMP penalty for a mobile phone. (A is only responsible.) - team B gets a 5 IMP zero tolerance penalty. (B is only responsible.) - teams are playing too slow and each side gets a 3 IMP penalty. - two screen mates (a player from A and a player from B ) are loudly discussing how you can make 6♠ on board 21. Other tables hear this. The players are equally guilty. Each team gets a 5 IMP penalty. - Without penalties the score would have been A: 112 - B: 113 IMPs Then team A gets subtracted 3 IMPs in this match for a total of 109. Team B loses 5 IMPs for a total of 108. Team A wins, B is knocked out. In the next match, team A starts with a score of -8 IMPs. (And if it is a double knockout format, team B might start his next match with -8 IMPs.) Rik

Edit: Suggestion to solve the slow play penalty problem moved to Bridge Base Forums -> International Bridge Laws Forum (IBLF) -> Laws and Rulings Rik